university of eastern finland · 2020-06-26 · unique nature of work, as well as numerous of other...
TRANSCRIPT
UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND
Faculty of Social Sciences and Business Studies
Business School
ALTRUISTIC VALUES AND ACTUAL BEHAVIOR AMONG CABIN CREW
Master’s Thesis
Tourism Marketing & Management
Sanelma Mäkelä 300632
June 2020
Abstract
UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND
Faculty
Faculty of Social Sciences and Business studies
Department
Business School
Author
Sanelma Mäkelä
Supervisor
Raija Komppula
Title
Altruistic values and actual behavior among cabin crew
Main subject
Tourism Marketing
and Management
Level
Master’s Thesis
Date
18.6.2020
Number of pages
89+30
Abstract
Altruism is a topical subject due to people’s growing will to help others. It applies also in work
life; trend is to be “good guy”. Companies that enable altruistic behavior from employees gain
numerous of benefits, such as improving of brand image and wellbeing of employees. Altruistic
behavior is greatly influenced by values, yet there is no earlier research about altruistic values of
tourism workforce, even though it is vital for constantly growing field of tourism. One group
among tourism workforce is cabin crew members, which has earlier been studied mainly from
health aspect, yet their values remain unresearched. However, cabin crew members around the
world and in Finland are altruistically quite active. Hence, sample group of the study is those cabin
crew members at Finnair who behave altruistically.
Purpose of the study is to find out why cabin crew members behave in altruistic way. Expectedly,
unique nature of work, as well as numerous of other reasons, have an influence on altruistic values
and consequently behavior. The value theory used in this study is Schwartz’s Value Survey (2012),
and concentration is especially in values of benevolence and universalism, since in previous studies
they have been studied strong in altruism.
Research is conducted via online survey. Survey had several different themes, which regarded e.g.
work and volunteer experience. Themes and questions were based on e.g. Schwartz’s value theory,
theories about altruistic behavior or other predictions. The survey included both unstructured and
structured questions, and it produced both qualitative and quantitative data. The concentration is in
qualitative content analysis, yet some quantitative methods such as mean values and sum variables
are used to strengthen the findings. The number of replies to use for analysis is 57.
Results show that reasons behind altruistic behavior of cabin crew members are complex, and work
influences them. Study proved Schwartz’s values of benevolence and universalism as most
important values among altruistically behaving group, yet other values matter as well. Therefore,
many different approaches to altruism, e.g. egocentric or pure, are presented. The data provides
examples of altruistic behavior and current and possible targets of help, which could be used in
several ways, e.g. from organization point of view.
Key words
altruism, altruistic values, altruistic behavior, altruism in tourism, tourism workforce, cabin crew,
flight attendant
Tiivistelmä
ITÄ-SUOMEN YLIOPISTO
Tiedekunta
Yhteiskuntatieteiden ja kauppatieteiden
tiedekunta
Yksikkö
Kauppatieteiden laitos
Tekijä
Sanelma Mäkelä
Ohjaaja
Raija Komppula
Työn nimi
Hyväntekemisen arvot ja ilmenemismuodot matkustamohenkilökunnan keskuudessa
Pääaine
Matkailun markkinointi
ja johtaminen
Työn laji
Pro Gradu -tutkielma
Aika
18.6.2020
Sivut
89+30
Tiivistelmä
Altruismi eli muiden edun edistäminen on ajankohtainen termi. Altruistista käyttäytymistä ohjaavat
voimakkaasti arvot, ja kiinnostus altruistista käyttäytymistä kohtaan on kasvanut. Työelämän
trendinä on olla ” hyvä tyyppi” ja yritykset, jotka mahdollistavat työntekijöidensä hyväntekemisen
hyötyvät siitä mm. parantamalla brändiään ja työntekijöidensä hyvinvointia. Toisaalta, alati
kasvava matkailuala on riippuvainen työntekijöistään. Kuitenkaan matkailualan työntekijöiden
altruistisia arvoja ei ole tutkittu. Yksi työntekijäryhmä on matkustamohenkilökunta, joiden arvoja
ei ole tutkittu lainkaan, sillä aiemmat tutkimukset on tehty esimerkiksi terveydellisestä
näkökulmasta. Matkustamohenkilökunta tekee kuitenkin hyväntekeväisyyttä aktiivisesti niin
Suomessa kuin maailmanlaajuisesti.
Tutkimuksen tarkoituksena on selvittää, miksi matkustamohenkilökunta käyttäytyy altruistisesti.
Kohderyhmänä on ne Finnairin matkustamohenkilökunnan jäsenet, jotka tekevät tai ovat tehneet
hyväntekeväisyyttä tai vastaavaa. Oletettavaa on, että syitä käyttäytymiseen on useita, ja arvot ovat
yksi näistä. Myöskin matkustamohenkilökunnan työllä oletetaan olevan vaikutus. Tutkimuksen
arvoteoriana on Schwartz (2012) ja keskittyminen on etenkin hyväntahtoisuuden ja universalismin
arvoissa, jotka ovat nousseet aiemmissa altruismitutkimuksissa tärkeiksi.
Tutkimus on toteutettu internetkyselynä ja se sisälsi avoimia kysymyksiä ja ennalta määrättyjä
vastausvaihtoehtoja. Kysymykset esitettiin teemoittain ja ne pohjautuivat niin Schwartzin teoriaan
kuin muihin altruismiteorioihin. Kysely tuotti sekä laadullista että määrällistä dataa 57 vastauksen
muodossa, jota analysoitiin pääasiassa sisällönanalyysin tavoin. Myös muita menetelmiä, kuten
summamuuttujia, käytettiin analyysin tueksi.
Tulokset osoittavat, että syitä matkustamohenkilökunnan altruistiseen käyttäytymiseen on useita ja
työllä on näihin vaikutus. Schwartzin arvoista hyväntahtoisuus ja universalismi osoittautuivat
voimakkaimmiksi, mutta myös muut arvot ja syyt merkitsevät altruistisessa käyttäytymisessä.
Tutkimus tarjoaa esimerkkejä matkustamohenkilökunnan hyväntekeväisyydestä ja sen nykyisistä
ja suunnitelluista kohteista, joita voi hyödyntää esimerkiksi yrityksen näkökulmasta.
Avainsanat
altruismi, altruistiset arvot, altruistinen käyttäytyminen, altruismi matkailussa, matkailun
työvoima, matkustamohenkilökunta
CONTENT
1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 1
1.1. Background of the study ........................................................................................................ 1
1.2. Research gap .......................................................................................................................... 2
1.3. Objectives and research questions ......................................................................................... 4
1.4. Approach, context and target group ...................................................................................... 5
1.5. Key concepts ......................................................................................................................... 6
1.6. Structure of the research ........................................................................................................ 9
2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ........................................................................................... 10
2.1. Values .................................................................................................................................. 10
2.1.1. Definition of values................................................................................................... 10
2.1.2. Schwartz Theory of Basic Values ............................................................................. 11
2.2. Altruism ............................................................................................................................... 15
2.2.1. Definition of altruism ................................................................................................ 15
2.2.2. Approaches to altruism ............................................................................................. 17
2.3. Altruistic values ................................................................................................................... 19
2.3.1. Factors affecting altruistic values ............................................................................. 19
2.3.2. Factors affecting altruistic values of cabin crew....................................................... 23
2.4. Actual Behavior ................................................................................................................... 26
2.4.1. From actual behavior to altruistic behavior .............................................................. 26
2.4.2. Existing altruistic behavior of cabin crew ................................................................ 29
2.5. Theoretical conclusion......................................................................................................... 32
3. METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................................... 34
3.1. Methods of research ............................................................................................................ 34
3.2. Methods of data collection .................................................................................................. 35
3.3. Methods of data analysis ..................................................................................................... 40
4. FINDIGS .................................................................................................................................... 45
4.1. Altruistic cabin crew members ............................................................................................ 45
4.2. Important factors for altruistic behavior .............................................................................. 50
4.3. Altruistic behavior of cabin crew members......................................................................... 64
4.4. Meaning of cabin crew work for altruistic behavior ........................................................... 72
5. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION ........................................................................................ 80
5.1. Discussion of the findings ................................................................................................... 80
5.2. Theoretical contributions ..................................................................................................... 85
5.3. Managerial implications ...................................................................................................... 85
5.4. Critical evaluation of the research ....................................................................................... 86
5.5. Suggestions for future research ........................................................................................... 89
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................... 90
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Research gaps for the study .................................................................................................. 3
Figure 2. Positioning of the study ........................................................................................................ 6
Figure 3. Main features of values (Schwartz, 2012) .......................................................................... 12
Figure 4. Ten basic personal values (Applying Schwartz, 2012) ...................................................... 13
Figure 5. Theoretical model of relations in ten basic values (Schwartz, 2012) ................................. 14
Figure 6. Approaches to altruism ....................................................................................................... 17
Figure 7. Factors influencing altruistic values ................................................................................... 20
Figure 8. Factors in cabin crew work influencing altruistic values ................................................... 25
Figure 9. Causes for actual behavior (Terlau & Hirsch, 2015) .......................................................... 27
Figure 10. Causes for altruistic behavior and appearances ................................................................ 28
Figure 11. Theoretical framework of the study .................................................................................. 32
Figure 12. Sample group’s experience with volunteer work ............................................................. 45
Figure 13. Sample group’s socio-demographic information ............................................................. 46
Figure 14. Sample group’s experience in cabin crew work ............................................................... 47
Figure 15. Appearance of Schwartz’s values in general .................................................................... 48
Figure 16. Importance of Schwartz’s values in actual behavior ........................................................ 51
Figure 17. Other important factors in altruistic behavior ................................................................... 59
Figure 18. Causes for begin with altruistic behavior ......................................................................... 61
Figure 19. Causes for continuing altruistic behavior ......................................................................... 63
Figure 20. Types of altruistic behavior .............................................................................................. 64
Figure 21. Location of altruistic behavior .......................................................................................... 67
Figure 22. Receiver of altruistic behavior .......................................................................................... 69
Figure 23. Organizations in altruistic behavior .................................................................................. 70
Figure 24. Views of altruistic behavior .............................................................................................. 70
Figure 25. Influence of cabin crew work to altruistic values ............................................................. 73
Figure 26. Influence of cabin crew work to altruistic behavior ......................................................... 75
Figure 27. Work and volunteer experiences in frequency polygon ................................................... 76
Figure 28. Colleagues and their influence in altruistic behavior ....................................................... 77
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Definitions of values ............................................................................................................ 11
Table 2. Definitions of altruism ......................................................................................................... 16
Table 3. Altruistic behavior at Finnair ............................................................................................... 31
Table 4. Aims and theoretical backgrounds in the survey ................................................................. 38
Table 5. Distribution of the survey .................................................................................................... 39
Table 6. Methods of data analysis ...................................................................................................... 41
Table 7. Mean values and Cronbach’s alpha in altruistic behavior ................................................... 52
Table 8. Possible influencer to altruistic value: Gender .................................................................... 56
Table 9. Possible influencer to altruistic value: Age ......................................................................... 57
Table 10. Possible influencer to altruistic value: Position ................................................................. 57
Table 11. Possible influencer to altruistic value: Work experience ................................................... 58
Table 12. Possible influencer to altruistic value: Volunteer experience ............................................ 59
APPENDIX
Appendix 1. Original survey in Finnish
1
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background of the study
At the time of this thesis, COVID-19 pandemic has put the world to a standstill, driving tourism sector
to an unforeseen crisis (UNWTO a, 2020) as well. Even though stirring and shocking, the different
situation has also created something interesting; it has evidently shown people’s growing will to help
(Pfattheicher, Nockur, Böhm, Sassenrath, & Petersen, 2020, p. 3). Simultaneously, it has given
altruistic means an important role in adapting and surviving (Stankovska, Memedi, & Dimitrovski,
2020, pp. 33-34); creating altruistic action to a current tropic.
However, altruism became a topic of interest before this recent and sudden worldwide situation. The
colleagues of author emerged as a tourism workforce group with exceptionally strong spirit for
volunteer or charity work. The help offered is different types of volunteer work, mainly in Finland
but also abroad. Helping happens outside working hours and it might be non-job-related or partly job-
related. Therefore, the discussion of why this certain work group seems to be so active in altruistic
actions appeared. The group is cabin crew members, which is a tourism workforce (Baum, 2007, pp.
1393, 1396) that travel a lot via work and many also in leisure time. The idea to research more of the
altruistic values and behaviour of the cabin crew appeared and emerged, tourism workforce and their
values have not really been researched earlier. To limit the study, the main topic to thesis was chosen
as values and behavior among altruistically active cabin crew members and the reasons behind them.
Altruistic values in general are a relevant research topic, as recently the trend in work life has been
to “be a good guy” (Väntönen, 2020), which can at least partly be linked to general good will. Also,
companies benefit from doing good. For example, Neste company in Finland has given an opportunity
in 2017 and 2019 to get paid half-day to do charity work, which has improved both work satisfaction
and motivation (Neste, 2020, p. 30) and increased team spirit (Jakosuo-Jansson, 2018). Hence, the
opportunity from companies to give employees paid hours to do volunteer work have generally been
encouraging and the projects have been greatly successful and created numerous of positive effects.
Firstly, employee satisfaction and motivation has increased in cases where the company allows
employees to do charity work and get paid for it. Secondly, brand image has become better.
Researches show that companies that make higher levels of humanitarian outgoings have better
reputations, in some fields more than in others. (Brammer & Millington, 2005, pp. 29, 40) Thirdly,
2
competitive advantage has grown for companies that do good. Corporate social responsibility, CSR,
often helps companies to do volunteer act and that generates competitive advantage for businesses
(Porter & Kramer, 2006, pp. 1, 9). Therefore, altruism is an important performance criterion for
companies, especially when employee’s values meet company values. (Valentine, Godkin,
Fleischman, Kidwell, & Page, 2011, p. 518) For company to acknowledge employees’ altruistic
values might be an advantage, since different type of voluntary work has also been linked to happiness
and health (Borgonovi, 2008, p. 2331) and to successful work career, such as enhancing professional
status and expertise, increasing work quality and strengthening leadership qualities. (Harper & Allen,
1997, p. 41).
Company volunteer work might increase the employee’s willingness for altruistic action also during
their spare time. Especially millennials have been studied to find it particularly important that the
company does charity work. As growing numbers of cabin crew members are expectedly millennials,
this topic might be rather important, as well as the fact that millennials’ charity is toughly influenced
by colleagues. The Australian’s ThinkAdvisor research (2015) exposed that even 46% would be more
likely to make a donation if encouraged by their colleague. If their supervisor prompt them to do so,
it would be only 27% (ThinkAdvisor, 2015, p. 1). Therefore, the importance of the research being
mainly done to find out the motivation of the cabin crew - employees – instead of management, is
narrowed.
1.2. Research gap
There are few justified research gaps for this thesis. Cabin crew is quite an understudied professional
group (McNeely, et al., 2018, p. 1) and tourism workforce in general is fairly ignored in research field
(Baum, Kralj, Robinson, & Solnet, 2016, p. 1). While commercial aviation and flight crew have been
researched, especially by economists, psychologist and ergonomists (Bennett, 2006), big part of the
researches consider e.g. scheduling, turbulence injuries, safety and first aid issues. Even more of the
researches study impacts of flying towards health and work environment, as after all the conditions
are rather heavy due to noise, air pressure, jet lag and radiation and e.g. cancers are very common
among cabin crew (McNeely, et al., 2018, p. 1). Cabin crew’s support of colleagues (Zanthopoulou,
Baker, Heuven, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2008, p. 345) and commitment to the profession have been
shortly studied and fulfilling of self-interest was found (Dahlberg, 2016). However, as self-
enhancement and self-transcendence are opposite value dimension (Schwartz, 2012, p. 9), there still
is plenty of room to study cabin crew values more. After all, values or motivations of the cabin crew
3
members do not appear in search results, nor does the actual behavior. Therefore, there is a clear
research gap for the study considering values and motivations of cabin crew members.
Likewise, this also includes the absence of studies about altruistic values and behavior among cabin
crew members or even tourism workforce in general. Furthermore, the impacts of empathy and
altruism within tourism have not really been researched significantly (Filep, Macnaughton, & Glover,
2017, p. 26) even though there is a need to engage empathy more critical to tourism studies (Tucker,
2016, pp. 32, 41) as well to tourism workforce. While there are plenty of research about volunteer
work from tourist viewpoint, and even an existing term of altruistic tourist (Amadeus, 2015, p. 18),
none is from employee point of view. In addition, this type of study is one of the kinds in Finland.
The major research gaps are presented in Figure 1 below.
Figure 1. Research gaps for the study
The colours in the Figure 1 above introduce reader to a colour scheme used in thesis. Colours are
used as a guidance for a reader; to help interpret which circumstantial connection is presented in a
certain figure and hence they are presented in this first chapter. Blue reflects topic of altruism, green
reflects topic of values, while turquoise reflects topic of altruistic values as it is a combination of
Lack of research about altruistic values of cabin crew
Lack of research about
altruism in tourism
workforce including
cabin crew
Lack of research about
actual behaviour of the cabin crew
Research gap for
master's thesis
Lack of research about
cabin crew values
4
these two main terms. Furthermore, orange reflects topic of actual behaviour and yellow, even though
not shown in the figure above, presents cabin crew work.
1.3. Objectives and research questions
This research aims to study how tourism workforce’s certain values are connected to their certain
behaviour. Thus, the study is objected to concentrate on the altruistic values and behavior within
those cabin crew members who are, have been or wish to be active in volunteer or charity work.
Understanding values helps to understand behaviour (Posner & Munson, 1979, p. 9) as values affect
greatly to decision making (Dietz, Fitzgerald, & Shwom, 2005, p. 337) which leads to behavior
(Verplanken & Holland, 2002, pp. 444-445). The behaviour of a workforce individual is important to
several stakeholders, such as a company and indubitably individual itself.
The main research question is:
• Why do cabin crew members behave in an altruistic way?
The supportive research questions are:
• What kind of characteristics do altruistically behaving cabin crew members have?
• What is important in altruistic behaviour for cabin crew members?
• What kind of altruistic behaviour do cabin crew members have?
• What kind of meaning does work as a cabin crew member have for altruistic behaviour?
The research focuses on altruistic values and actual behaviour, as well as cabin crew members as a
target group, by presenting them and relevantly to the topic. It discusses cabin crew members and
their values in general, yet it focuses on the altruistic values of particular cabin crew members. The
emphasis is to find out how the individual cabin crew members form a common perspective of the
topic and see how those findings fit into the theoretical frame of values dimensions. Expectedly the
values of benevolence and universalism raise for the strongest of all in Schwartz’s values theory
(Romani, Grappi, & Bagozzi, 2012, p. 196). Also, expectedly the work as a cabin crew member has
some effect on altruistic values and behaviour.
5
1.4. Approach, context and target group
Approach
World Tourism Organization (2019) promoted that the future work will need more soft skills from
employees, such as empathy (UNWTO b, 2019, pp. 48-49), which is one of the starting points of
altruism (Batson, 2017, p. 165 & Haski-Leventhal, 2009, p. 275). Studies have shown how for
example altruism and career satisfaction are interrelated (Valentine et al., 2011, p. 519) yet still
altruism or values and their connection towards tourism workforce, have not been studied. Previous
altruism and tourism studies have mainly discussed host volunteering types of studies, where an
approach has been combined with i.e. social sciences to theoretics and evolutionary biology to
empirical evidence (Paraskevaidis & Andriotis, 2017, p. 34), or altruism has been linked to
continuous and constantly widening trend of sustainable tourism (Martin-Rios & Gössling, 2020)
since it is the basis of environmentally friendly behavior (Corral-Verdugo, et al., 2009, p. 34). As one
of the future traveller trends is an ethical tourist (Amadeus, 2015, pp. 61-62), place for an ethical
tourism workforce could be considered as well. After all, this research fits into sustainable tourism
and its development because it includes stakeholders and it helps to ensure consensus and sustainable
building in socio-cultural way (UNWTO c, 2020). Nonetheless, similar type of study is not found and
mirroring this study to an existing one is not possible. Hence, the approach here is quite cross-
disciplinary.
The research is an intrinsic case study. Data is collected via online survey to gain an in-depth
understanding of a topic from Finnish cabin crew members. The survey consists mainly of open-
ended questions with some multiple-choice questions, which will be reflected e.g. how the values fit
into dimensions in quantitative point of view. The data analysis will be conducted partly qualitative
and partly quantitative ways. The base of the analysis is to mirror findings to Schwartz Value Theory.
Positioning
The theoretical positioning of the study is presented in the Figure 2 below. It presents how this
research focuses on values and actual behavior within individuals of tourism workforce. The origins
of the study are values, especially altruism. That is followed by actual behavior. The context is
tourism, particularly tourism workforce. Accordingly, the purpose of the study is to research values
6
of tourism workforce, with an example of altruistic values in a certain tourism workgroup and set a
base towards tourism workforce values research.
Figure 2. Positioning of the study
Target group of the research
The research group for this case study is cabin crew members at Finnair. Finnair is one of the world’s
oldest operating airlines (Finnair Company a, 2020) that employs numerous of different nationalities
in both Finland and around the world. Majority of crew works from Helsinki base and most crew flies
to all of Finnair’s destinations, which are greatly over 100 in three different continents (Finnair a,
2020). Even though studying only one organization might limit the generalization to other employees
(Valentine et al. 2011, p. 519), cabin crew members among one company still offer a clear sample
group to this study and help to keep the study reliable since now working conditions and different
opportunities are alike and equal among participants. The study will be performed on Finnish crew
members only. This is mainly since there are some disagreements on how much the culture affects
individuals’ values (e.g. Kropotkin 1902, Erikson 1968, Smith 1981, Piliavin & Charng 1990,
Schwartz 2012) and volunteering and opportunities might differ depending on the country of living.
1.5. Key concepts
7
Values
Values are moral principles (Dietz et al., 2005, p. 339), beliefs or knowledge (Rokeach, 1979, p. 16)
that infuelce decision making (Dietz et al., 2005, p. 340). They help to decide between right and
wrong (Cambridge Dictionary a, 2020) as well as present appropriate ways to behave (Rokeach, 1973
& Schwartz, 1992; ref. Balliet, Joireman, Daniels, & Feorge-Falvy, 2008, p.269) for self or for
another (White, 1993, p. 63).
Altruism
Altruistic act aims to help (Batson, 2017, p. 161) and benefit another by taking other’s welfare into
consideration (Haski-Leventhal, 2009, pp. 271, 291) by aiming to increase it (Batson, 2017, p. 271)
– even if getting nothing in return (Cambridge Dictionary b, 2020) or possibly even sacrificing
themselves (Monroe, 1996, p. 6). Altruism is part of the value clusters (Dietz et al., 2005, p. 335) and
is a human motivation (Smith D. , 1981, p. 23). It can also be considered as helping behavior (e.g.,
de Waal, 2008; ref. Batson, 2017, p. 161).
Actual behaviour
As Nobel Prize psychologist Daniel Kahneman stated: “expected human behaviour is not the same
as actual human behaviour” (Parker, 2018, p. 1). First, there are beliefs. Second, beliefs lead to
attitudes. Third, attitudes turn into intensions. And finally, intensions determine if actual behaviour
happens. (Terlau & Hirsch, 2015, pp. 160-161) A trustworthy indication of person’s attitude is the
way they act in the course of time (Corey, 1937, p. 271)
Motivation
Human motivations are universal (Schwartz, 2012, p. 3). Motivation means the enthusiasm to do
something (Cambridge Dictionary f, 2020) and setting goals towards them (Heckhausen &
Heckhausen, 2008, p. 9). It is an expectation of rewards and punishments (Tolman 1932 & 1948; ref.
Shuart, Spaulding, & Poland, 2007, p. xxix). There are different types of motivations, e.g. ectrinsic
and intrinsic (Heckhausen & Heckhausen, 2008, p. 4), which are affected by different things.
Motivations are highly reflected by values. (Schwartz, 2012, p. 2).
8
Empathy
Empathic concern or distress helps altruistic motivation to develop (Batson, 2017, p. 165 & Haski-
Leventhal, 2009, p. 275). Empathy means to understand and imagine what other people are feeling
or thinking (Segal, 2018, p. 3) and what it is like to be at the place of others (Cambridge Dictionary
c, 2020). Empathy is a helping behaviour (Elliott, Watson, Bohart, & Greenberg, 2011, p. 43).
Volunteerism
Volunteerism means to do good cause work without salary (Cambridge Dictionary d, 2020).
Volunteering comes from a strong motivation to help e.g. environments or communities (Coghlan &
Fennell, 2009, p. 377) while not expecting anything material in return (Haski-Leventhal, 2009, p.
272). However, helpers often receive intangible personal benefits (Coghlan & Fennell, 2009, p. 377).
Volunteering and voluntarist act are often associated to altruism, though there is no review to bind
these two (Haski-Leventhal, 2009, p. 271).
Charity
Charity is a social phenomenon (O'Halloran, 2011, p. 11) and also a political tool (Lichtenberg, 2009,
pp. 17, 19). It is a system that aims to help people in different kinds of needs, e.g. ill, homeless or
poor people (Cambridge Dictionary e, 2020). Charity is a synonym to philanthropy, aid, help or
assistance (Lichtenberg, 2009, p. 16). It can also mean an organization, which purpose is to provide
help or money (Cambridge Dictionary e, 2020). Charity and altruism are strongly linked, and altruism
is an important characteristic of charity (O'Halloran, 2011, p. 11).
Tourism workforce
Tourism is relying on people working directly or in influence with it. Those people are included into
workforce, which can be considered as employment or labour (Baum et al., 2016, p. 1, 3). Therefore,
tourism workforce is those working with tourism businesses, who get the money from the tourists
(Andriotis & Vaughan, 2004; ref. Baum et al. 2016, p. 3), yet also tourism students can also be
included into tourism workforce (Chambers, 1997, p. 183). In this study, the tourism workforce under
discussion is cabin crew members (Baum, 2007, pp. 1393, 1396); also known as flight attendants.
9
1.6. Structure of the research
This study is structured into five sections. The first part guides a reader into the study via introduction,
which provides reasons and interest towards the topic and provides research problem. Background of
the study, previous related research, sample group and key concepts are introduced. The second part
provides theoretical background to the research and estimates the results in theoretical framework. It
consists of literature review on relevant researches about values, altruism, actual behaviour and cabin
crew. Value section consists mainly of Schwartz theory of basic values, as it is used as a frame for
the study. As altruism has not been studied among tourism field a lot, it is presented rather detailed
to help to understand its complexity. Actual behaviour will be presented as well with concentration
in altruistic behavior. Theory section about cabin crew presents expectations on what might be the
cause for cabin crew’s altruistic values and altruistic behaviour, mainly based on literature yet partly
also on authors experiences. At the end of the second chapter, a conclusion about theory is provided.
Aim of the second chapter is to justify the importance of the study. The third part discusses how the
research is implemented. It clarifies the methodological choices for the study and validates the chosen
methods for data collection and data analysis. The fourth part is the findings of the research. The
final, fifth part concludes this study by discussing about the findings by placing them with the
previous theory of the topic. The reliability and validity of the study is evaluated. Critical evaluation
of the study results is provided, with some future research ideas to finish the study.
10
2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
2.1. Values
2.1.1. Definition of values
Values as a concept is somewhat disagreed (Van Deth & Scarbrough, 1995, p. 22). The term value
originates from Latin word: valere, which means to be strong and worthy (Dietz et al., 2005, p. 339).
Values as a term might also refer to variety of interests, likes, pleasures, preferences, moral
obligations or duties etc. (Rokeach, 1979, p. 16) or it might characterize societies, individuals and
cultural groups (Schwartz, 2012, p. 2). One’s ethics and moral are defined by values; what can be
considered good or not good, acceptable or not acceptable (Fowler, 1935, p. 6) – hence, in everyday
language, values can be explained as moral principles (Dietz et al., 2005, p. 339). Values can be
affected by different things, e.g. age, beliefs or conversations (Dietz et al., 2005, pp. 363, 365; Pantal,
Pantaleon, Chataigne, Bonardi, & Long, 2019, p. 172 & Bartlett 1987, p. 520), yet they usually remain
rather stable overtime (Schmitt, Schwartz, Steyer, & Schmitt, 1993, p. 118).
Everyone has values (Schwartz, 2012, p. 3), which are selected because of different reasons (Fowler,
1935, p. 5). People can choose their own values (Fowler, 1935, p. 5) and hence, values can also be a
desirable aspect (Van Deth & Scarbrough, 1995, p. 22) that help an individual to grow (Barrett Values
Centre, 2020). Values impact behaviour (Komppula, Honkanen, Rossi, & Kolesnikova, 2018, p. 119)
and decisions – sometimes unconsciously – (Schwartz, 2012, p. 4), as well as decision making (Dietz
et al., 2005, p. 340). People have different types of values, for example economic or ethical values,
(Gray & Campbell, 2007, pp. 478-479) for different situations and their importance to the individual
varies, as well as the amount and type (Schwartz, 2012, p. 3). The different definitions of values are
assembled in the Table 1 below:
Different ways to define values
Fowler 1935 Values as the individual’s privilege of choosing without limitations:
choosing values (Fowler, 1935, p. 5).
Scott 1956 &
Kluckhohn 1951
Values as the desirable influencer of ends of action, means and modes
(Kluckhohn, 1951, pp. 389; ref. Rokeach, 1979, p. 72).
11
Cambell 1958 Values as some semblance of an object quality or boundedness (Cambell,
1958; ref. Rokeach, 1979, p.17).
Fallding 1965 Values as desirability of criteria – often equated with satisfaction, desire or
liking (Rokeach, 1979, p. 19).
Rokeach 1979 Values as a belief that the specific conduct is either socially or personally
preferably to the converse or opposite conduct. (Rokeach, 1979; ref. Dietz et
al., 2005, p. 347)
Schwartz 1987 Values as e.g. beliefs or concepts, suitable behavior or end state (Schwartz,
1987; ref. Dietz et al., 2005, pp. 345-346). Values refer to desirable goals
and serve as standards (Schwartz, 2012, pp. 3-4). More of these are studied
in the following chapter.
Van Deth &
Scarbrough 1995
Values as a desirable, empirical conceptions that are used in moral discourse,
with a certain type of behavior (Van Deth & Scarbrough, 1995, p. 22).
Table 1. Definitions of values
Values is popular research interdisciplinary and defining values depends also on the discipline.
Especially in sociology values have been important, but they also have a role in anthropology,
psychology and associated disciplines (Schwartz, 2012, p. 3). For example, and only to mention a
few, in philosophy, values are principles that help to make decisions in conflict situations (Dietz et
al., 2005, p. 335). In psychology, values refer to individual-level motives, needs, attitudes and
preferences (Van Deth & Scarbrough, 1995, p. 22). In economics, values are often used in social
choice discussions to base the decisions towards the utilitarian ethic (Dietz et al. 2005, p. 335). In
sociology, values refer to a social concept when discussing about customs, norms, ideologies,
manners and such. (Van Deth & Scarbrough, 1995, p. 22). All values have affective, cognitive and
directional aspects (Rokeach, 1979, p. 16) which are affected by several things. However, presenting
all different types of values are not relevant for this study and therefore the concentration will be on
personal values. There are several different approaches to measuring values of an individual (Dietz
et al., 2005, p. 346), e.g. Value Survey by Rokeach (1973) or List of Values (LOV) Kahle’s (1983)
(Lee, Soutar, & Louviere, 2008, p. 335). The theory to be used in this research is Theory of Basic
Values by Schwartz, since it is has been widely tested (Giménez & Tamajón, 2019) and is one of the
most commonly used theories to research individual differences of values (Schwartz, 2003).
2.1.2. Schwartz Theory of Basic Values
12
Schwartz et al. (2012) have been researching different cultural groups around the world. Based on
those findings, a theory and a model that can be called “universal in the modern world” was created.
(Dietz et al., 2005, p. 347). From 1980s to its latest version from 2012 the theory has been developed
(Giménez & Tamajón, 2019). First, the presentation of six main features of values generally are given
in the Figure 3 below. The following are implicit in several other theorists’ writings:
Figure 3. Main features of values (Schwartz, 2012)
The presented features are suitable for all the values universally and summarize many other
researchers’ beliefs of values. However, people have different types of values and their importance
varies. Therefore, the behavior of some values is different to other, due to the motivations or goals
behind them. As goals or motivations are not shown in the above-mentioned conception of values,
Schwartz created ten universal broad goals, including values with motivations in them. In that the
distinguisher from one value to another is shown, with description of the type of motivation or goal
they express. (Schwartz, 2012, p. 4). These are presented in Figure 4 below. These ten values in terms
are also the start of Theory of Basic Values by Schwartz.
1. "Values are beliefs"
2. "Values refer to desirable goals"
3. "Values transcend specific
actions and situations"
4. "Values serve as standards or
criteria"
5. "Values are ordered by
importance"
6. "The relative importance of
multiple values guides action"
13
Figure 4. Ten basic personal values (Applying Schwartz, 2012)
The model used in this thesis as a theory is an on-built theoretical model, which clarifies the dynamic
between them by showing how these values are related by placing them into a section inside a circle
to present motivational continuum. The closer the sections are to each other, the more similar their
motivations are. The further the sections are to each other, the more incompatible their motivations
are. This is done to show how enhancing one basic value might cause expense to the value on opposite
of that. However, the values next to each other might be compatible and even work stronger together.
Therefore, for example the values of benevolence and universalism might work well together, and
they are places next to each other in the circle. On the other hand, benevolence and achievement are
on the opposite sides of the circle and the conflict might appear if one aims to value both equal
amounts in a single act. Consequently, the actions have social, psychological and practical
• Goal: to think and act, to choose and explore independently, to control and master oneself
1. Self-Direction
• Goal: to have novelty, excitement and novelty in life, to maintain positive and optimal level of activation
2. Stimulation
• Goal: to pleasure and satisfy oneself
3. Hedonism
• Goal: to gain social standard success
4. Achievement
• Goal: to control and dominance other, to gain prestige and social status, to focus on social esteem
5. Power
• Goal: to have stability, harmony and safety of self and relationships
6. Security
• Goal: to not upset others, to not violate social norms, to not restraint actions; to be loyal and responsible
7. Conformity
• Goal: to commit and respect the religional or cultural provides
8. Tradition
• Goal: to enhance and preserve the welfare of in-group
9. Benevolence
• Goal: to protect, appreciate and understand the welfare of all: nature and people
10. Universalism
14
consequences which a person might or might not acknowledge. (Schwartz, 2012, pp. 8-10) To
visualize this, Figure 5 is presented below.
Figure 5. Theoretical model of relations in ten basic values (Schwartz, 2012)
The placing of the values enables the categorization of four dimensions: Openness to Change, Self-
Transcendence, Self-Enhancement and Conservation. The dimensions sort similar values together by
placing them next to each other. Expectedly the dimension of self-transcendence – benevolence and
universalism – will most likely be the strongest values in this research since they emphasise social
altruistic interests (Romani et al., 2012, p. 196) and they enhance others and transcendence egoistic
interests (Schwartz, 2012, p. 9). This Short Schwartz’s Value Survey (SSVS) is used as a main theory
in this thesis. Even though it is more narrow, SVSS has proven to provide a practical alternative with
good temporal stability and good internal consistency (Lindemann & Verkasalo, 2005, p. 177). When
Schwartz firstly created Schwartz Value Survey SVS (1992, 1996), it included 57 different items in
addition to 10 value scales. However, the use of that is not applied in this study as it is not only time-
consuming (Lindemann & Verkasalo, 2005, p. 171), but also includes non-relevant items. In addition,
Schwartz himself has also updated the single values later on, which confirms the choice to concentrate
on the, fresher version (Fischer, Vauclair, Fontaine, & Schwartz, 2010). Nevertheless, some items
from the original SVS list are taken into consideration later in the thesis, as they might be important
for analysing of the thesis. Since the concentration in this thesis is on benevolence and universalism,
those single values are acknowledged, such as helpful, loyal, forgiving and responsible to
15
benevolence and equality, wisdom, world peace, protection of environment and social justice to
universalism. (Schwartz, 1992, p. 7)
2.2. Altruism
2.2.1. Definition of altruism
The term altruism is said to be invented by Auguste Comte (1798-1857) who wished to name the
certain type of unselfish social behaviour (Batson, 1991, p. 5). The term originates from Latin word
alter (Britannica, 2020) and it means “for the other” (Haski-Leventhal, 2009, p. 161). Altruism has
many different theoretical definitions and it can be outlined in numerous different ways. Hence, the
meaning of term is rather remarkably disagreed (Monroe, 1996, p. 6). Generally common to most of
the descriptions is however to define it as certain type of human motivation (Smith D. , 1981, p. 23)
aimed for helping another (Batson, 2017, p. 161) and can be developed (Batson, 1991; ref. Haski-
Leventhal, 2009, p. 274). The core of altruism is the orientation towards benefitting the other (Haski-
Leventhal, 2009, p. 271) – meaning one’s willingness to act so that it brings advantages to others
even though getting nothing in return (Cambridge Dictionary b, 2020). Thus, altruism can be
considered as an attempt to optimize the satisfaction of other(s) without consciously expecting
parallel satisfaction optimization efforts in return (Smith D. , 1981, p. 23) and it must always involve
goal-directed action, aimed to promote the welfare of another (Monroe, 1996, p. 6). The helping aims
to gain internal reward instead of external (Batson, Lishner, & Stocks, 2015, p. 40). All in all, when
increasing other’s welfare is the very ultimate goal of benefitting another, action can be called
altruistic (Batson, 2017, p. 161).
The definitions of altruism aim to answer the altruism question: “Why do people do what they do for
one another?” (Batson, 1991, p. vii). However, there are some chief differences within defining the
term, starting with how some define altruism as an act and some as motion. For example, Batson
(1991) discusses that self-sacrifice is not necessary for altruistic act or motivation (Haski-Leventhal,
2009, p. 272) yet he presents some scholars, for example psychologists, who consider altruism to be
requiring self-sacrifice (Batson, 1991, pp. 7, 168). Haski-Leventhal (2009) agrees while also stating
that both, altruism and self-sacrifice, exist in nature – even among animals (Haski-Leventhal, 2009,
p. 287). Nonetheless, in evolutionary biology the concept of altruism has been understood differently,
yet it can still be considered as behaviour that benefit another, while causing personal cost to the
individual submitter (Kerr, Godfrey-Smith, & Feldman, 2004, p. 135). Thus, even though common
16
to most of the definitions is to mention the will to benefit the other – while altruistic act might harm
the helper – the definitions are several. Table 2 below presents different ways how altruism has been
defined by researchers:
Different ways to define altruism
Comte
1851/1875
Altruism as living for others as an exceptional behaviour, caused by unselfish desire.
Hence, there to be some kind of unselfish social behaviour. (Batson, 1991, p. 5)
Freud
1920
Altruism as motivation that could develop, but only as a strategic expression to
enhance one’s own well-being (Batson, 1991; ref. Haski-Leventhal, 2009, p. 274).
Nagel
1970
Altruism as motivation to take other’s interests into consideration (Haski-Leventhal,
2009, p. 291).
Wilson
1975
Altruism as benefitting others via own self-destructive behaviour (Piliavin & Charng,
1990, p. 29).
Hoffman
1978
Altruism as behaviour that, without conscious concern for one’s personal self-interest,
supports the welfare of others (Hoffman M. L., 1978, p. 326).
Smith
1981/2000
Altruism as an inner tendency of either individual or group which focuses on
providing significant services to other/s in order to increase the helper’s satisfaction
(Haski-Leventhal, 2009, p. 272) and an act that involves a mixture of both other-
serving and self-serving characters for a provider-entity (Smith, 1981; ref. Smith,
2000, p. 18).
Batson
1991
Altruism as “a motivational state with the ultimate goal of increasing another’s
welfare” (Batson, 1991, p. 6) and as an internal concept which refers to the temper or
tendency of an entity to try to benefit others (Smith D. H., 2000, p. 17).
Monroe
1996
Altruism as a behaviour that possibly sacrifices the welfare of the actor while aiming
to benefit another (Monroe, 1996, p. 6).
Sigmund
& Hauert
2002
Altruism as any type of action that benefits the receiver by increasing its fitness and
harms the giver by decreasing its fitness (Haski-Leventhal, 2009, p. 272; Sigmund &
Hauert, 2002, p. R270).
Table 2. Definitions of altruism
Altruism has traditionally been researched and answered by philosophers (Batson, 1991, p. vii), but
in the 19th century, theories on altruism started to develop due to academic discipline of sociology
(Haski-Leventhal, 2009, p. 280). Thus for some centuries now, altruism has been researched cross-
disciplinarily, e.g. by economists, psychologists, primatologists (Batson, 2017, p. 161) and
17
sociologists (Haski-Leventhal, 2009, p. 292). They consider altruism as a helping behaviour (e.g., de
Waal, 2008; ref. Batson, 2017, p. 161) or motivation for the behaviour (Batson, 2017, p. 161).
However, altruism has also been studied by biologists (Batson, 2017, p. 161), who consider altruism
in an evolutionary theory as sacrificing one’s own fitness in order to enhance the fitness of others.
(Simon, 1992, p. 73) Nevertheless, as biological concept of altruism is vaguely different to e.g.
sociological phrasing – where altruistic action means helping another with the conscious intention –
no such requirement is needed within biological sense (Zalta, Nodelman, Allen, & Perry, 2013, p. 1).
2.2.2. Approaches to altruism
There are several different altruism theories and presumptions on what the real reason behind altruism
is, as it is a disputed term. Unlike in values, no certain theory is chosen for this study but instead,
most popular theories about causes for altruism are presented. These are divided roughly based on
Haski-Leventhal (2009) visions, combined with Batson (1991) with some modifications. From now
on in this thesis, these reasons will be referred as approaches to altruism. The categorized approaches
are presented in the Figure 6 below.
Figure 6. Approaches to altruism
First, there is egocentric approach to altruism, which is quite leading in the study of altruism and
studied by e.g. Mill (1861), Blau (1967), Knox (1990) and Batson (2017). It believes that helping is
done because it will eventually benefit the helper either indirectly or directly. The help might be good
Different approaches to
altruism
Egocentric
Pure
Sociological and Cultural
RelativeAlter-
Centric
Economic
Emphatic
Biologic
18
feeling, guilt escape or reduce of personal distress (Haski-Leventhal, 2009, p. 274; Batson, 2017, p.
161) and it occurs due to selfish reasons (e.g. Smith 1981 & Batson 2017). Second, there is disturbed
term of pure altruism, also known as complete altruism or true altruism. It is studied by e.g. Nagel
(1970), who considered altruism as an internal duty and a moral asset, Monroe (1996), who basically
studied some people simply to be more altruist than others (Haski-Leventhal, 2009, p. 291) and Allen
& Rushton (1983), who contemplate on ”altruistic personality” (Allen & Rushton, 1983, p. 36).
Sociological and cultural explanation was studied by e.g. Kochanska & Aksan (2004), who believe
that children are egoistic and learn altruism as a product of socialization as they grow older – hence,
altruism is a product of culture and/or society and community features (Haski-Leventhal, 2009, pp.
275, 292-293). Relative approach was studied by e.g. Cnaan & Golberg-Glen (1991), Krebs (1982)
and Smith (1981), who considered altruism not to really exist as every altruistic act is an egoistic act
(Haski-Leventhal, 2009, pp. 272, 280) yet the reason behind helping is a mixture of both other- and
self-serving disposition (Smith, 1981; ref. Smith, 2000, p. 18) and the motivation to help another is a
combination of numerous motives (Haski-Leventhal, 2009, p. 280). Hence, also the known term of
helper’s high can be considered into this, as due to positive emotions on selflessly helping others,
body receives positive changes as well as lower stress hormone levels (Dossey, 2018, p. 393), which
benefit the helper. Alter-Centric approach was studied by e.g. Darley & Latane (1968), who
introduced the “bystander effect”, where people are less willing and even able to help when they are
in a group since they believe someone else will do the job (Haski-Leventhal, 2009, p. 278).
Economic angle was studied by e.g. Simon (1992), who considered that economic ties might be as
strong as genetic ones in altruistic act (Haski-Leventhal, 2009, p. 288), e.g. employees’ and managers’
behavior in a company is strongly affected by altruism (Simon, 1992, p. 73). Empathic approach
might be carried out in Batson’s empathy-altruism hypothesis (1987, 1991, 2011) as if correct and
existing, it basically refers to a broad human motivational repertoire which is wider than self-interest
or material gain and that altruism basically is a caricature. (Batson, 2017, p. 170) Biologic approach
is studied by e.g. Kropotkin (1902), who finds altruism as natural to (some) human nature instead of
result of culture (Haski-Leventhal, 2009, pp. 280-281). It is also studied by many biologists, as
altruism can be found also in animals, yet since humans possible will to help outside their association
group, humans differ from animals, which is called reciprocal selection (Fehr & Rockenbach, 20014;
Sigmund & Hauert, 2002; ref. Haski-Leventhal, 2009, p. 287-288).
19
2.3. Altruistic values
2.3.1. Factors affecting altruistic values
“The question of the existence of altruism is, at heart, a question about valuing.”
(Batson, Lishner, & Stocks, 2015, p. 6)
Altruistic values can be discussed under altruism (Boenigk;Leipnitz;& Scherhag, 2011), as well as
values. For example, Dietz et al. (2005) claim altruism to be one of the four value clusters. Others are
self-interest, openness to change and traditionalism. (Dietz et al., 2005, p. 335) With an example from
previous studies about altruistic values, they are often not separately defined but rather case-by-case
linked to that certain topic. Therefore, any separate definition of altruistic values is not presented in
this thesis. After all, the reasons for altruism and its position in person’s values are numerous and in
order to know what kind of altruistic values are significant here, the research itself is needed. Some
altruistic values can be categorized into Schwartz’s self-transcendence values (e.g. Romani et al.
2012, p. 196 & Zasuwa, 2016, p.4), but most likely not all.
There are, however, some factors that affect altruistic values or more precisely, both altruism and
values. The causes are rather similar and often overlapping, and therefore they are combined together
in this chapter. Only the most essential and relevant ones considering the focus on this thesis are
gathered and visualised in Figure 7 below. On the left side of the figure there are factors that affect
both values and altruism. On the right side of the figure there are factors that affect especially altruism.
The factors that are in darker green colour fit also to Schwartz ten basic values, even though Schwartz
model is not used in this table specifically. The information is mostly gathered from various
references, which are mentioned aligned with further explanation of each factor, and the division is
author’s perception of the factors.
20
Figure 7. Factors influencing altruistic values
Age
One of the factors affecting altruistic values is age. Different age of people often performs altruism
differently and possibly for different reasons. Interest towards altruism also commonly increases over
age due to e.g. better knowledge of cultural norms and increased social competences and
responsibilities (Piliavin & Charng, 1990, p. 38). Krebs (1982) suggested altruistic motivations to
develop in seven different stages, which change over time (Haski-Leventhal, 2009, p. 276). Similarly,
age also has an impact for values. Even though values often remain quite stable overtime (Schmitt et
al., 1993, p. 118), the age of an individual affects the importance of certain values. For example,
collective values are more appreciated compared to individual values, the older a person is (Pantal et
al., 2019, p. 172).
Loyalty, relationship and group-pressure
Altruistic values can be impacted by both loyalty to either other individuals or to identified group.
Especially organizational groups have high loyalty. Employees might trust altruistic act to reach much
higher levels in organizational effectiveness rather than what could be conquered by punishments or
rewards in the face of selfish motivation (Simon, 1992, p. 81), and this belief creates altruism. In
values, this can be termed as familial, and heredity has an effect on values (Bartlett, 1987, p. 520).
Gender
Risk-taking
Approval
Emotions
Empathy
Factors
influencing
altruistic
values
Age
Loyalty, relationship
and group-pressure
Socio-cultural acceptability, culture and beliefs
Tradition and upbringing
Situational factors
Communication
21
Furthermore, as Oliner & Oliner (1988) state how the existence of former connections might lead a
will for people to help one another. The current relationship between receiver and helper has the same
effect. (Haski-Leventhal, 2009, p. 279) In addition, group pressure has an effect. The “bystander
effect” by Darley and Latane (1968) explains how someone is less able to help and less probable to
intrude in an emergency situation when there are other people present, comparing to if they were
alone (Haski-Leventhal, 2009, p. 279). On the contrary though, group pressure might affect the
opposite way as well.
Socio-cultural acceptability, culture and beliefs
Generally, many individuals and organizations desire to be seen as altruistic since it can be considered
as socio-culturally adequate. Many also wishes to categorize themselves altruistic. Therefore, the
effort to altruism might be done in aim to gain socio-cultural acceptability, even though the non-
altruistic or selfish will might otherwise be stronger. (Smith D. , 1981, p. 30) After all, people are
free to choose their values (Fowler, 1935, p. 5) and hence they can eventually have values they wish
to have. However, this can also be called as a cultural impact. On balance, cultural context is an
important role of developing one’s identity and therefore one’s worldview and values (Erikson, 1968;
ref. Gellel & Buchanan, 2011); also altruistic values (Verplanken & Holland, 2002, p. 444). Similarly,
beliefs, religion and politics effect on values (Bartlett, 1987, p. 520) and altruism in general and
therefore they are acknowledged here as well. Moreover, individuals’ position in social structure
affect values and attitudes which could also be interesting in this study (Stern, Dietz, & Guagnano,
1995, p. 727). Likewise, different norms presented by i.e. society have effect on persons altruistic
values (Elster, 2006, pp. 197-198); such as the differences in e.g. collectivist and individualist
cultures, since e.g. collectivist cultures expect protection and respect to and from other people in the
culture while individualistic cultures are less willing to disadvantage themselves (Sun, Horn, &
Merritt, 2004, p. 319).
Tradition and upbringing
Example of parents or family might have a strong impact, as altruistic model can be received from
home. For example, if a parent has altruistic values, it shows a model of altruistic values and
behaviour to their children. The model is stronger when an example comes from a mother to daughter
or from father to son. (Hoffman M. L., 1975, pp. 937, 942) However, this might also be honouring
22
for parents (Schwartz, 2012, p. 6) as altruistic values are often developed in various stages of life and
might be strongly affected by parents (Verplanken & Holland, 2002, p. 444)
Situational factors
People’s readiness for helping is affected by certain situation. For example, after a disaster, people
are more eager and willing to help than in ordinary, day-to-day situations (Piliavin & Charng, 1990;
ref. Haski-Leventhal, 2009, p. 278). Therefore, as during the time of thesis writing, the COVID-19
pandemic is shocking western world strongly, which is expected to be seen in the results.
Communication
Similar to sense and identity, also values are developed from interaction and community with
someone who’s views are respected. Indeed, conversations – likewise to situational factors – change
and shape the emphasis that an individual place on values. (Dietz et al., 2005, pp. 363, 365)
In addition to these, there are some factors that affect altruism and altruistic motivation but are
necessarily not really connected to values. These are for example gender; in general, women often
get more help than men (Haski-Leventhal, 2009, p. 279) but women often also give more help than
men. Women also notice the need of help more frequently (Austin, 1979; ref. Piliavin & Charng,
1990, p. 34), prior altruism higher than men (Dietz et al., 2005, p. 365) and also choose a work to
helping another with altruistic means (Thoman, Brown, Mason, Harmsen, & Smith, 2014, p. 184).
Second factor is risk-taking; people who are more likely to take risks might also be more likely to
have altruistic will and values. Likewise; those people who are high in self-efficacy and self-worth,
might be more altruistic. (Piliavin & Charng, 1990, pp. 33-34) Thirdly, people who highly need
approval from others are afterwards in life more likely to want to help than those low in need for
approval in previous social reinforcement (Piliavin & Charng, 1990, p. 36). Fourthly, emotions of
many different kinds, such as sympathy or love, and shame or pride, effect on altruistic motivations
and their approaching (Elster, 2006, p. 192).
Finally, there is empathy. Piliavin & Charng (1990) studied that the more helpless the helped person
is seen the more likely people wish and want help them. (Haski-Leventhal, 2009, p. 279) This is a
probable cause from empathy, which has a big impact for altruism and consequently empathy is an
important term in altruism research. Like altruism, also empathy is a long-researched term (Davis,
23
2018) which has many different definitions (Eisenberg & Strayer, 1987, p. 5) that variate depending
on the research field and author (Cuff, Brown, Taylor, & Howat, 2014, p. 144). Simply put, empathy
can be defined as placing ourselves in the place of others – understanding what they are feeling or
thinking (Segal, 2018, p. 3) and the capability to imagine and possibly sense that (The Greater Good
Science Center at the University of California, 2020). Empathy is also often associated with the term
of sympathy (Levenson & Ruef, 1992, p. 234). All in all, empathy and altruism can be considered as
rather similar type of behavior. Current COVID-19 seems to have added the altruistic act overall as
well as importance of empathy. For example, professor and former prime minister of Finland
Alexander Stubb (2020) claims that empathy is the most important thing human beings have; the
world that is fighting pandemic and, in the future, having jobs done by robotics, the thinking done by
AI and algorithm – then what is left is empathy. (Junkkari, 2020, p. B3)
Nonetheless and even though the two terms of altruism and empathy are rather corresponding, its
importance in altruism is controversial. Empathy is said to be an important steppingstone to the source
of altruism, even though it might also not be necessary in altruism (Batson, 2017, pp. 163, 165).
However, Hoffman (1975) discovered empathic distress to be one factor in altruistic motivation
development (Haski-Leventhal, 2009, p. 275), followed by Batson (2017) who recognized emphatic
concern to be producing altruistic motivation (Batson, 2017, p. 165). Hence, in this thesis, empathy
is considered as being one major cause for altruism and an important term.
2.3.2. Factors affecting altruistic values of cabin crew
In order to estimate altruistic values among this specific sample group, some basic information about
work as a cabin crew member is given, since the nature of work is rather special and might influence
altruistic values. In addition to basic criteria, such as certain height and language skills, cabin crew
members are required to have certain skills that might variate depending on the company. For
example at Finnair, cabin crew members are expected to have e.g. good social interaction skills and
adaptability, situational intelligence, strong customer-service spirit, flexibility and genuinely positive
attitude towards life (Finnair Company b, 2020). Of those demands, interesting to this research is
especially situational intelligence and positive attitude.
Situational intelligence appears as in how cabin crew members in general have intensive interpersonal
interactions, which can strongly be categorised into emotion work. Cabin crew are expected to show
strong, appropriate and sudden emotions of e.g. compassion, strictness, sadness and friendliness in
24
changeable situations. Showing these types of expressions often come naturally, and if not, they are
being deep acted, which changes actual feelings (Heuven & Bakker, 2003, pp. 82-84) and is strongly
used by cabin crew as an emotional strategy (Okabe, 2017, p. 161). Deep acting creates changes to
own authentic emotion (Heuven & Bakker, 2003, pp. 82, 84), and subsequently cabin crew work can
be seen as emotional labour (Tungtakanpoung & Wyatt, 2013, p. 15). Emotional labour is an
important feature in a frontline service job such as cabin crew job, where the emotions need to be
controlled quite a lot by workers (Curley & Royle, 2013, p. 105). However, controlling and changing
own emotions via deep acting increases the emotional disagreement among individual, which might
either have an affect towards altruistic values due to changed emotions or it might affect negatively
to some employees by causing problems with personal relationships. (Williams, 2003 & Noon and
Blyton, 2007; ref. Curley & Royle, 2013, p. 106) Example of this is a quote below:
“ I acted as if the whole world was my best friend, because that is the concept
that one is slowly being fitted into. In fact, one is learned to love everybody.
You love your colleagues, the purser, the pilots and especially the passengers.
You love the whole world and actually you don’t make any differentiation in that. “
Anonymous flight attendant (Heuven & Bakker, 2003, p. 81)
Loving the whole world can surely be true, yet it can also be considered as deep acting in which case
it might consequently lead to positive attitude towards life and forward to values. Therefore, it might
be an example of altruistic values as chosen values. Via example it also proves that cabin crew
members are skilled in emotion examining and emotion management (Bolton & Boyd, 2003, p. 289).
Moreover, career orientation and altruism have a high correlation and therefore altruism shows a
negative relationship with emotional tiredness (Sek-yum Ngai & Cheung, 2013, p. 116).
However, cabin crew members are rather versatile workgroup and e.g. the age gap, backgrounds and
characteristic differ a lot. The working teams and hours, as well as destinations and customers, change
usually every day and crew members have seen a lot of different places and life conditions around
the globe. Hence, not all cabin crew members necessarily deep act their emotions and consequently
values, but rather truly have altruistic values which might be affected – in addition to previously
mentioned factors – also by a special nature of the work. Those specialities that working as a cabin
crew member might have for individual’s altruistic values are presented below in Figure 8. The
factors are gathered partly from author’s own experiences as working as cabin crew, and partly from
theories presented about cabin crew members.
25
Figure 8. Factors in cabin crew work influencing altruistic values
The special features in flight attendant work that might influence altruistic values are numerous.
Emotional skills were presented above the figure already, and another factor might be for example a
will for compensation. Lifestyle created by work is rather consuming to the globe and increases a
cabin crew member’s own carbon footprint. This might cause the obligation to help. After all,
altruistic values are frequently linked with environmentally responsible behavior (Kim &
Stepchenkova, 2019, p. 1) and altruism is a central term in environmental values discussions (Dietz
et al., 2005, pp. 335, 344). Altruistic values fit into Schwartz’s universalism category, and so does
biospheric values as well. Biospheric values means a will to protect the environment and to be united
with nature, and altruism and biospheric values are strongly connected. Interestingly, people who
have adapted lower-carbon lifestyles rate altruistic values higher than biospheric values (Howell,
2013, pp. 282, 286) and therefore altruism is an essential characteristic of pro-environmental
behaviour (Hartmann, Eisend, Apaolaza, & D'Souza, 2017, p. 44). All this, together with common
opinions on feeling guilty for flying (Kroesen, 2013, p. 271) might affect a cabin crew member
altruistic value as shame might be a strong motivator for altruism (Elster, 2006, p. 184).
Also privilege and gratitude might stimulate altruistic values (Romani et al., 2012, p. 194). Privilege
might be a cause of many things, yet among this sample group it might be to generally feel privileged
Factors in
cabin crew work
that might affect
altruistic values
Emotional skills
Compensation
Privilege
Hobby
Acknowledgement
Profiency
Group pressure
26
to get to travel so much, to get to live in the happiest country in the world (Helliwell, Layard, Sachs,
& De Neve, 2020, p. 20) and also in one of the safest country (Crotti & Misrahi, 2017, pp. 158-159).
These together might create a will or even obligation to help. After all, individual difference factors,
which altruistic values belongs to, has an impact to gratitude feeling (Romani et al., 2012, p. 204). In
addition, very irregular working hours might make volunteer work might as some sort of hobby
which can be performed when suited best for an individual itself, as many volunteer perform
volunteer work regularly as a leisure-time activity (Mojza, Sonnentag, & Bornemann, 2011, p. 123).
Other factors do not base directly to theory but to authors own understanding of the field and possible
factors it might create. One of them might be e.g. acknowledgment, as global traveling and meeting
plenty of people who suffer in worse conditions than majority in Finland, create thoughts. In addition,
via work cabin crew members travel a lot and therefore might realize and be awakened for the need
of help around the world. Similarly, proficiency might have an impact. Being a tourism professional
might increase the awareness of the horrors that is happening in the world and that might create
obligation to help. As many cabin crew members are originally educated as tourism professionals and
many as nurses, that might have an effect on why altruistic values seem to be common among this
certain group. Since working as a cabin crew member requires good team working skills, talk about
altruistic work might be common amongst certain colleagues. Therefore, group pressure might be
an important factor as well, making altruistic values as a community output. Colleague’s openness
about their volunteer work might create other to feel group pressure and therefore perform an altruistic
act. This differs from the group factor presented in previous chapter.
In addition to these, it might be a possibility that the relation between job and cabin crew members
does not exist. Therefore, the altruistic values of cabin crew members might not be affective by any
of these factors, and the possibility for a cabin crew member to simply have purely altruistic values
exists. Consequently, a possibility for self-egoist and other altruistic approaches is existent too.
2.4. Actual Behavior
2.4.1. From actual behavior to altruistic behavior
“…human behavior is complex and changes over time…”
(Riffe, Lacy, Watson, & Fico, 2019)
27
People usually care a lot of their actions and outcomes, as well as motives and dispositions. However,
those might be controversial with each other (Lichtenberg, 2009) and therefore actual behavior is
important, especially overtime (Corey, 1937, p. 271) compared to expected behavior as excepted
human behavior differs from actual behavior (Parker, 2018, p. 1). Actual behaviour is affected by
several things, such as personality, individual differences (Back, Schmukle, & Egloff, 2009, pp. 536,
544), social desirability and prejudice etc. (Pager & Quillian, 2005, pp. 359, 370). Actual behaviour
is a cause from intensions, attitudes and beliefs (Terlau & Hirsch, 2015, pp. 160-161) and often – but
not necessarily – strongly by values. In Figure 9 below, attitude and values are united into one. The
figure is adapted and simplified to show only the important factors towards this thesis, which is the
progress from attitudes to intentions to behavior, and this simplified theory is only one of the many
theories about actual behavior.
Figure 9. Causes for actual behavior (Terlau & Hirsch, 2015)
Values are expected to influence decisions (Dietz et al., 2005, p. 337), while decision making reflects
to actual behavior. Hence, for behavior to happen, values need an activation and often strong feelings
(Verplanken & Holland, 2002, pp. 444-445), as well as intensions and decision making (Dietz et al.,
2005, p. 337). The decision process leading to actual behaviour is influenced by many different
factors, such as situational, social and individual (Terlau & Hirsch, 2015, p. 161) and is wider in some
community and business sectors than in others (Rundle-Thiele, 2009, p. 297). If the behavior is a
result of thoughtful decisions, as it sometimes is, then possible changes in values affect to behavior
to change (Dietz et al., 2005, p. 337). However, since values usually remain rather stable overtime
(Schmitt et al., 1993, p. 118), they create consistency in behavior (Balliet et al., 2008, p. 270). They
also both explain and justify intentions and actions (White, 1993, p. 63), and they are the desirable
Attitude
• Individual Factors
• Personal values
Intention• Social Factors
Behavior• Situational Factors
28
influencer of ends of action, means and modes (Kluckhohn, 1951, pp. 389; ref. Rokeach, 1979, p.
72). Values also help to predict behaviour (Balliet et al., 2008, p. 270).
Generally, there is a lack of actual behavior and data of the topic (Dietz et al., 2005, p. 364) even
though actual behavior interests and affects cross-disciplinary. Different types of actual behavior are
e.g. economic behavior (Earl, 2017, p. 5), social actual behavior (Back et al., 2009, p. 534) and
helping behaviour, to which empathy (Elliott et al., 2011, p. 43) and altruism belongs to (e.g., de
Waal, 2008; ref. Batson, 2017, p. 161), at least from sociologists approach (Haski-Leventhal, 2009,
p. 292). Altruistic behaviour as such then has been studied e.g. in biology among both human and
animals (Sussman & Cloninger, 2011, p. 29), its positive or negative effects towards community
(Ibtissem, 2010, p. 130) or as behavior towards those who have helped the giver or will help in the
future (Dugatkin, 2006, p. 182), which all limit this study. Therefore, no specific theory model
towards altruistic behaviour is needed and the repliers for the thesis can themselves define what they
consider as altruistic action.
There are, however, a few theoretical points that are needed to be acknowledged for this study. Firstly,
altruistic values and altruistic personality are affected by many different things (Piliaving & Charng,
1990), like previously explained. Secondly, altruistic behavior does not “just happen” (Pfaff, 2015,
p. 50) as the situation needs to be relevant for individual’s self-concept for action to happen
spontaneously (Verplanken & Holland, 2002, p. 445). If situation addresses an altruistic person
enough, it creates actual altruistic behavior. And thirdly, altruistic behavior can take many different
and plentiful forms (Piliavin & Charng, 1990, p. 31; Theurer & Wister, 2009, p. 160), and some of
them are presented next. These main points of altruistic behavior in this study are presented in the
Figure 10 below.
Figure 10. Causes for altruistic behavior and appearances
ALTRUISTIC VALUES
Person has some altruistic values,
which are affected by various of things.
IMPORTANT SITUATION
Situation is important enough to create altruistic action.
VERSATILE APPEARANCES
Altruistic behaviour might take numerous
of different forms.
29
Examples of altruistic actions and behavior include almost any action that benefits the helped. The
behavior can be performed e.g. via moral or material ways. Acts like helping senior citizen crossing
a street or giving directions to a stranger are moral altruistic behavior, while donating money or goods
to charities and doing charity work or giving money to a stranger can be material altruistic behavior.
(Argan & Argan, 2017, pp. 864-865) Also, donating blood is studied as an altruistic behavior
(Pomazal & Jaccard, 1976, p. 317), yet since cabin crew generally are not allowed to donate blood
due to restrictions (Veripalvelu, 2020), it most likely is not found in results. Altruistic behavior is
also recycling (Hopper & Nielsen, 1991, p. 215) and refusal from littering (Elster, 2006, p. 198).
Also, sharing or dividing something that is own is altruistic behavior (Bryan & London, 1970, p.
206). Interestingly, people with high education and knowledge are seen to present the most efficient
in altruistic acts and helping behavior in general. Ethicist Singer (2013) presented that in effective
altruism, the most significant people are people with e.g. economics, mathematics or philosophic
backgrounds. That is because they have rational understanding of the world and subsequently
knowledge of smart ways to help. (Singer, 2013)
Altruistic act and volunteer act are commonly associated. However, even though the nature of these
two is somewhat similar and it might feel natural to associate these, the really is no review that binds
these two (Haski-Leventhal, 2009, p. 271), yet both of them can be considered as motivational force
for participants and a key factor in on-site experiences (Coghlan & Fennell, 2009, p. 377).
Volunteerism highlights the helper’s free will and not expecting material rewards (Haski-Leventhal,
2009, p. 272). Altruistic manners then exist and appear in behavior of volunteer tourists. However,
the experience is mainly dominated by derived personal benefits from the experience, making
volunteer tourism representing a form of social egoism, which surely benefits local communities and
environments. (Coghlan & Fennell, 2009, p. 377) Though, as presented earlier, the differences
between what is altruism and why it exists are numerous. Therefore, volunteer work and volunteerism
will only be managed as a final consequence of altruistic act in this thesis, to help to keep the focus
on altruistic values in general. Similarly, charity work is included into consequence of altruistic
behavior.
2.4.2. Existing altruistic behavior of cabin crew
Finnair cabin crew is vigorous in altruistic acts as individuals. For example, out of greatly over 2000
cabin crew members, roughly 500 belong to a closed an active and closed Facebook group which
concentrates on and organizes volunteer and charity work with colleagues. However, since the
30
information there is in a private group, it will not be published here but instead, some public
information and comparison to other airline’s cabin crew members’ charity or volunteer activities are
shortly presented. Examples are numerous, such as cabin crew charity organizations like QCCT, a
charity organization consisting of Qantas network and originated from cabin crew member (QCCT,
2018) and Delta Clipped Wings, Inc. (DCW), a charity organization for previous and current crew of
Delta and was founded 1957 from the idea of a superintendent (Delta Clipped Wings, 2020). In
addition to these, charity organizations of The Beacon Foundation by Northwest Airlines exists, with
similar examples from American Airlines and United Airlines (Beacon Foundation, 2020). There
have also been specific cabin crew charity campaigns, such as Ryanair’s Cabin Crew Charity
Calendars (Magrath, 2014).
Even though some Finnair crew members have founded own charity organizations, it is not organized
as a certain employee group charity organization like in some other airline examples. Hence, the
comparison between cabin crew at Finnair and other airlines is difficult. However, some examples of
Finnair’s charity work are presented since via those examples both predicted and ongoing actual
behaviour of the company’s cabin crew as well might be drawn. The company values of Commitment
to care, Simplicity and Courage, might play an important role of a current open volunteer spirit among
colleagues and show the importance of social responsibility as a fundamental attitude by the
company. Finnair values state that “company has significant expectations to fulfil in its role in
society” (Finnair Company d, 2020) which could be justified to create altruistic action, or at least an
incentive. Finnair’s external Code of Conduct (2019) states that the company seeks for continuous
improvement in sustainable development of civil aviation. This includes maximizing environmental
performance and also social value (Finnair Company e, 2019, pp. 3-4). In fact, people with altruistic
values generally respond favorably to pro-environmental and prosocial activities from corporate side,
which might be why employees such as cabin crew seem to be keen to take part on different projects
from both employer as well as colleagues’ sides (Zasuwa, 2016, p. 3718). Prosocial behavior includes
some altruism behavior mixed with other types of motivation (Schwartz & Howard, 1984, p. 229).
Organized and occurred altruistic behavior at Finnair
Company and
Customers
Charity
donations
Change for Good together with UNICEF and Click for Change
together with Amadeus
Customers Charity
donations Donating Finnair Plus points to several charity organizations
31
Company and
Employees
Charity
donations
Sustainable material management
Situational factor: COVID-19. Offering of fixtures and food
Volunteer
work
Event: Veteraanien rosvopaistitapahtuma
Situational factor: COVID-19. Lentävä Läksytuki and project
and temporal recruiting to hospitals.
Emergency
aid
Situational factor: Tsunami 2004. Ambulance flights with
apparently volunteer crew (participating volunteer yet getting
salary).
Cabin crew Charity
donations
Taivas mikä työpaikka -book about cabin crew work, written
by Finnair cabin crew.
Table 3. Altruistic behavior at Finnair
Some public examples of altruistic behavior by Finnair and employees are presented in Table 3 above.
Charity campaigns by company and customers are e.g. Change for Good with UNICEF and Click for
Change with Amadeus, where passengers can donate to charity when purchasing flight ticket
(Ihamäki, 2016 & Unicef, 2020). Customers can also donate their frequency flyer points to charity,
e.g. to The Finnish Red Cross and Finnish Association for Nature Conservation (Finnair Shop, 2020).
Employees and company together have performed several types of charity, such as collecting and
delivering extra meals and amenity kits from passenger planes to different charities (Finnair Company
c, 2020) and charity event “Veteraanien rosvopaistitapahtuma”, an annual rotating charity event for
ex-servicemen and has been organized by Finnair’s flying crew since 1992 with The Finnish Army
and Finnair (Karjalan prikaati, 2018 & Pesonen, 2017). There is also charity work due to situational
factors by company and employees; e.g. COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Some of the projects are
organized by employer and some by employees. E.g. Lentävä Läksytuki -project – cooperation with
Protect Children and Zoturi – where Finnair employees such as including cabin crew members help
home-schooled children with their homework (Finnair b, 2020) and temporal recruiting to hospitals,
which is also economically reasonable to an employee. Furthermore, Finnair Technical Services
offered cars and gasoline and Finnair Kitchen offered food and treats to charity (FinnairSuomi, 2020)
Also, during Tsunami in 2004, evacuation flights were organized in a fast schedule, when an airplane
was basically changed into flying ambulance (YLE, 2008). In addition, a book about experiences of
Finnair cabin crew members was published and the profit was donated to charity to Mental Health
Confederation's Princess School Campaign as charity (Lentoposti, 2012).
32
For comparison, a few examples of charity work from other airlines around the world were studied.
Interestingly and similar to cabin crew charity, many airlines around the world have their own charity
organization and foundations via CSR (corporate social responsibility), such as Air Canada for
children’s charity (Air Canada Foundation, 2020), Emirates for children’s charity (The Emirates
Airline Foundation, 2019), American Airlines for military, patients and global citizen charity
(American Airlines, 2020), British Airways for disadvantages children (British Airways, 2020),
Ethiopian Airlines for national help (Bekele, 2016) and Brussel Airlines for Africa help (Brussel
Airlines, 2020). Equally to Finnair, other big airlines around cooperate with and support charity
organizations, such as China Airlines (China Airlines, 2019), Air New Zealand (Air New Zealand,
2020) and Malaysia Airlines (Malaysia Airlines, 2020). Airlines such as Japan Airlines allow cabin
crew perform charity via fund-raising activities, e.g. postcard campaigns (Japan Airlines, 2020).
Similar to Finnair, some situational charity due to COVID-19 presents e.g. Air Canada by giving out
nearly 2500 kg fresh food to several charity organizations (Air Canada, 2020). Hence, a charity work
by airlines is a popular and trendy subject and might be important to be acknowledged in order to
understand cabin crew and their altruistic behaviour.
2.5. Theoretical conclusion
Figure 11. Theoretical framework of the study
Altruistic values and actual behavior among cabin crew members
Work as a cabin crew member
Actual behavior
Altruistic behavior
Altruistic values
Values
Altruism
Factors
influencing altruistic values
e.g. charity work,
volunteer work
33
Figure 11 above summarizes the literature review and provides the theoretical framework for the
study. Its central objective is to understand the many factors influencing cabin crew’s altruistic values
and altruistic behavior. It is presented here to lead to the study methods and analysis with concentrated
view of the theory section.
On the left at the figure there are altruistic values, which are a combination of both values and
altruism. The value theory this study is based on is Theory of Basic Values by Schwartz (2012),
from which the self-transcendence values of universalism and benevolence are expected to be the
strongest among this group of altruistic people, since they generally highlight social altruistic interests
(Romani et al., 2012, p. 196). However, also altruism is a vital term since it can be considered as a
human motivation (Smith D. , 1981, p. 23) and behavior that goals to benefit another (Batson, 2017,
p. 161). Nevertheless, altruism might be caused due to different reasons, such as egocentric (e.g.
Smith, 1981 & Batson, 2017) or economic (e.g. Simon, 1992) and therefore it leads to the bottom of
the figure of factors influencing altruistic values. They can be multiple, such as age (e.g. Pantal et
al. 2019), culture (e.g. Erikson, 1968), upbringing (e.g. Verplanken & Holland, 2002) and situational
factors (e.g. Piliavin & Charng, 1990). Also, work as a cabin crew member might have an impact
towards those, which is why it is presented in the right of the figure with an arrow to altruistic values’
factors. Specialties on the job that are expected to have an effect to values are e.g. irregular working
hours that allow altruistic behavior as a hobby (e.g. Mojza et al., 2011) or need to compensate the
carbon footprint (e.g. Hartmann et al. 2017). Since it is a job with rather special working nature, some
theory about that is presented as well.
All of these factors circle altruistic behavior, which is placed in the middle of the figure. On top of
it there is actual behavior, which is a base of it. Therefore, the theory about values leading to
intention that leads to behavior (Terlau & Hirsch, 2015, p. 161) was presented. Some examples of
altruistic behavior were also given, yet lots more is expected from results since many of the examples
are cooperation with company and employees – not specifically by cabin crew members. Nonetheless,
altruistic values and work as a cabin crew lead to certain type of altruistic behavior, which is why it
is pointed out by arrows from both of them. From altruistic behavior, the arrow leads to e.g. volunteer
or charity work, which is presented in the right lower corner of the figure. However, theory about
volunteer or charity work is not presented further in the thesis, since the focus is mainly on the reasons
that lead to those. They are, however asked from the replier, since they help to draw an overall view
about the case and tell where the altruistic interest is directed to.
34
3. METHODOLOGY
3.1. Methods of research
Aim of the research
This empirical research aims to gain common knowledge about the subject as a current phenomenon
(Eskola & Suoranta, 1998). It focuses on understanding type of altruistic values and influencing
factors, and why they turn into altruistic behaviour among cabin crew members. Participants can
define themselves what they consider as altruistic behaviour, with given examples of some type of
charity work, volunteer work or other type of helping. The data for the study is collected via one
method, yet the data will be analyzed via qualitative and quantitative way
Qualitative and quantitative approaches
Qualitative study in general aims to find out behaviour and viewpoint (Eskola & Suoranta, 1998), as
well as meaningful topics (Vilkka, 2015) of the subject by creating a hypothesis (Walle, 1997, p.
524). Qualitative study not only finds out the behaviour of the participant but also how different
reasons, experiences or understandings are processed to influence that behaviour (Maxwell, 1998, p.
221). In this study, qualitative section is used e.g. to find out altruistic behaviour of the research
group; the reasons why that behaviour happens and occurs.
Quantitative study often repeats the study about same relationships and phenomena (Dolnicar, 2015,
p. 261). It aims to study how different variables interact with each other (Balnaves & Caputi, 2001)
and is popular on measuring values (Duffy & Chenail, 2009, p. 22). Quantitative study uses numbers
as tools (Dolnicar, 2015, p. 260) to guide towards results. Quantitative section in this thesis is used
together with qualitative study to e.g. find the altruistic values of the research group. It goals to see
how the values of benevolence and universalism presented in Short Schwartz Value Survey (2012)
are carried out comparable to other eight remaining values. It is also used to strengthen some
considered main points of altruistic values among cabin crew members in addition to qualitative.
Therefore, this study uses both qualitative and quantitative approaches applied via one method to
strengthen the data and to make answering to the survey as attractive as possible to the replier.
35
Case study
This study is an instrumental case study. Case studies answer how and why questions. They emphasize
the unique context to gain in-depth understanding. (Tellis, 1997, p. 289) Case studies allow room for
complexity and diversity, and hence work best when aiming for real-life setting of the case (Eriksson
& Kovalainen, 2016, pp. 131, 144). Because of that captive, as well as an example of “real people in
real situations” (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2011, p. 289), case studies help to make theories easier
to understand. Thus, the pro of case study is to present research problems in down-to-earth and
practical way, while elaborating to theory. This is, however, also the con, due to possibly lack of
scientific firmness. (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2016, p. 133) Nonetheless, case studies help to catch the
real and unique features in a case by a single researcher instead of a research team (Tellis, 1997, p.
293). Almost all of the qualitative researches are case studies (Eskola & Suoranta, 1998) even though
case study can include both qualitative and quantitative data (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2016, p. 132).
More specific, this study is an instrumental case study as it uses a case as a tool for acquisition insights
and broader appreciation towards a certain phenomenon (Crowe, et al., 2011, p. 6) and to get a general
understanding of the issue (Harling, 2012). An emic approach is included as, after all, due to author’s
own profession and collegiality, the researcher strongly sees the viewpoint of participant while tries
to keep the objective point for the study (Eskola & Suoranta, 1998). To sum up, case studies aim to
be significant in some way (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2016, p. 145) and intrinsic case study attempts
to catch the complexity and fruitfulness of the case (Grandy, 2012, p. 500)
3.2. Methods of data collection
Survey
Due to company policy, the data collection method that guarantees interviewees anonymity was
applied and it was chosen to be a survey instead of originally planned interviews. Surveys suit to
gather data on behaviour (Weisberg et al., 1996; Aldridge & Levine, 2001; ref. Cohen et al., 2011, p.
256) and to study values due to their capabilities to produce measurable data (McCarty & Shrum,
2000, p. 274). More specific, the data collection method is online survey, which is fare method for
this research group, because all the participants have the tool to answer the survey due to phones
offered by company, and digital surveys allow participant to fill questionnaire themselves where they
want (Tuomi & Sarajärvi, 2018).
36
Planning process
The planning process of survey followed loosely on 14-stage process provided by Cohen et al. (2011).
As the research questions and the focus were existing already, the process started in planning the type
of survey required and formulating research questions more specific. After that, determining the
sampling and deciding the method for data collection was planned. Before publishing the survey –
actually collecting data – the survey was tested before. Both piloting and pre-piloting was performed
to master’s student colleagues, family members and friends to find out how the survey works. In
addition, a fellow work colleague was contacted to ensure suitability for the research group. (Cohen
et al., 2011, p. 259) After that, the survey was published and distributed.
Structure of the questionnaire
The survey needs to be interesting for the replier, which usually requires the survey to be rather short,
hence only ask the relevant questions (Sue & Ritter, 2015, pp. 17-18) and all the questions need to
help to solve the research problem. Surveys allow to ask all types of questions: closed questions, half-
open and open questions and they can be used in both quantitative and qualitative study (Tuomi &
Sarajärvi, 2018). The survey of thesis has both unstructured and structured sections to get as
comprehend data as possible. Closed questions benefit in being more specific in offering same
response options to all the participants while open questions provide wider range in replies. The
difficulty is to conduct a good enough survey so that closed questions do not lead to the oversight
important replies (Dolnicar, 2013, p. 560) or that they do not insinuate replies in open questions.
The survey opens up with ethical viewpoint; telling the informant what the survey is for and
confirming the participant that they accept the use of their answers in the research (Tuomi & Sarajärvi,
2018). First section consists of demographic information about participant (2) and cabin crew work
(3) via structured questions. Second section consists of the type of altruistic behaviour (4) via
unstructured questions. Third section consists of values and reasons of altruistic behaviour (5a, 5b,
5c) via rating questions from highly important as 1 to not at all important as 5. Using this type of
Likert scale that offers five answer options is popular among tourism research, although the numeric
order is usually the opposite (Dolnicar, 2013, p. 565). The section is divided into three parts where
two primarily concentrates on Schwartz’s theory value model. Fourth section consists of time period
and amount of altruistic behaviour (6) via unstructured and structured questions. Fifth section consists
37
of work as a cabin crew member and altruistic behaviour (7) via unstructured question. In the end
there are also unstructured questions to find out values and behaviour of the participant in general
(8). The survey has total of 12 pages, as the pages are short. The structure goes the following:
quantitative section (2,3), qualitative section (4), quantitative (5abc) and qualitative (6, 7, 8). The
variation is done to keep the answerer active and interested, as the type of the questions is quite
different: quantitative are very specific and qualitative quite evolving (Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2006,
pp. 480, 482). Total amount of open-ended questions is 15.
Theoretical background for the questions is presented in Table 4 below. The survey aims to answer
the main research question of the study: Why do cabin crew members behave in an altruistic way?
Hence the supportive questions of (a) What kind of characteristics do altruistically behaving cabin
crew members have? (b) What is important in altruistic behavior for cabin crew members? (c) What
kind of altruistic behaviour do cabin crew members have? (d) What kind of meaning does work as a
cabin crew member have for altruistic behaviour? These questions are marked on the left column.
The second left column shows the question in survey. The second right column presents more specific
what factor the question represents, followed by theory base on the far-right column. Majority of
questions base on theory, while some base on author’s experiences. The theory and factor presented
in table are the primaries to be used for analysis even if some questions provide data and answers for
several supportive research questions and will be reviewed in discussion chapter.
The questions have been translated into English to fit the research text. To ease the reading of the
table, all the altruistic work, e.g. charity work, volunteer work, helping work, will be written as
volunteer work. This was also in the questionnaire; the term altruistic behaviour is not used, since it
is not very common term in Finnish language and might appear as unappealing to answerer. Hence,
the participant to the survey can think themselves what they consider as altruistic behavior, with
examples of volunteer or charity work. The original survey can be found in Finnish in Appendix 1.
SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE Aim Question Factor Adapted from
2 Basic Information
- a Do you do, or have you done volunteer work? Suitability for the survey
a: sample group
b: important factor
b Gender Factors in figure 7 (chapter 2.3.1.) Austin, 1979; Dietz et al. 2005 +
Schwartz 2012
a: sample group b: important factor
c Age Factors in figure 7 (chapter 2.3.1.) Pantal et al. 2019, Piliavin & Charng, 1990 + Schwartz 2012
3 Cabin crew work
- a Do you work, or have you worked as cabin crew member for
Finnair?
Suitability for the survey
a: sample group
b: important factor
b How many years have you been flying? Factors in figure 7 (chapter 2.3.1.) Pantal et al. 2019
a: sample group
b: important factor
c What is your role in cabin? Factors in figure 7 (chapter 2.3.1.) Stern et al. 1995 + Schwartz 2012
38
4 Volunteer work: Type
c: actual behaviour a What type of volunteer work do you do, or you have done?
c: actual behaviour
b Where do you do, or where have you done volunteer work?
b: important factor c Why do you do, or have done, that type of volunteer work?
c: actual behaviour d Would you like to do some else type of volunteer work?
What kind?
b: important factor e Why is volunteer work important for you? All values Schwartz 2012
5a Volunteer work: Values and reasons
b: important factor a Helping is part of me Values: Benevolence Schwartz 2012
b: important factor b I feel privileged, hence want to share good with others
b: important factor c I genuinely and selflessly want to help people close to me Values: Benevolence Schwartz 2012
b: important factor d I genuinely and selflessly want to help people I don’t know Values: Universalism Schwartz 2012
b: important factor e I genuinely and selflessly want to help nature Values: Universalism Schwartz 2012
b: important factor f I genuinely and selflessly want to help animals Values: Universalism Schwartz 2012
b: important factor g I genuinely and selflessly want to help community Values: Universalism Schwartz 2012
5b Volunteer work: Values and reasons
b: important factor a I want to do something significant Values: Self-Direction Schwartz 2012
b: important factor b I help, because I can decide how and when I help Values: Self-Direction Schwartz 2012
b: important factor c I want to do something new and different Values: Stimulation Schwartz 2012
b: important factor d Helping challenges me Values: Stimulation Schwartz 2012
b: important factor e Helping makes me feel good Values: Hedonism Schwartz 2012
b: important factor f Helping gives nice change to days Values: Hedonism Schwartz 2012
b: important factor g Helping makes me look good in other people’s eyes Values: Achievement Schwartz 2012
b: important factor h I seek for common approval Values: Achievement Schwartz 2012
b: important factor i I think helping now, benefits me later Values: Power Schwartz 2012
b: important factor j I currently get some reward or benefit Values: Power Schwartz 2012
b: important factor k Helping makes me feel safe Values: Security Schwartz 2012
b: important factor l I want some content in my life Values: Security Schwartz 2012
b: important factor m My friends, family or community helps, and I want to
belong to the group.
Values: Conformity Schwartz 2012
b: important factor n My friends, family or community helps, and urge me to do
volunteer work
Values: Conformity Schwartz 2012
b: important factor o I feel helping is my responsibility Values: Tradition Schwartz 2012
b: important factor p I have been raised to help others Values: Tradition Schwartz 2012
5c Volunteer work: Values and reasons
b: important factor a I am aware that my help is needed Factors in figure 7 (chapter 2.3.1.) Elster 2006
b: important factor b The older I grow, the more I feel the urge to help Factors in figure 7 (chapter 2.3.1.) Pantal et al. 2019, Piliavin & Charng,
1990 + Schwartz 2012
b: important factor c I help because some situation or matter awakes me for the need of help
Factors in figure 7 (chapter 2.3.1.) Piliaving & Charng
b: important factor d I am scared how my object of helping would manage
without my help
Factors in figure 7 (chapter 2.3.1.) Elster 2006, Piliavin & Charng 1990
b: important factor d: meaning of work
e Helping is my hobby Factors in figure 8 (chapter 2.3.2.) Mojza et al. 2011
b: important factor
d: meaning of work
f I help people at work and the role sticks on me during free
time
Factors in figure 8 (chapter 2.3.2.) Heuven & Bakker 2003
b: important factor g My leisure trips have widened my world view and increased my will to help
Factors in figure 8 (chapter 2.3.2.)
b: important factor
d: impact of work
h My work trips have widened my world view and increased
my will to help
Factors in figure 8 (chapter 2.3.2.)
6 Volunteer work: time period and amount
b: important factor a What got you involved with volunteer work in the first
place?
Factors in figure 8 (chapter 2.3.2.). Hartmann et al. 2017, Howell 2013,
Kim & Stepchenkova 2019, Schwartz
2012
c: altruistic behaviour
b Are you happy with the amount of volunteer work you currently do?
c: altruistic
behaviour
c Would you like to do more volunteer work?
c: altruistic behaviour
d How long have you done volunteer work? Factors in figure 7 (chapter 2.3.1.) Piliaving & Charng, Smith 1981 + Schwartz 2012
7 Cabin crew work and volunteer work
d: meaning of work a How has the work affected your values? Factors in figure 7 (chapter 2.3.1.) Erikson, 1968; Fowler 1935
d: meaning of work b How has the work affected your volunteer work? Factors in figure 7 (chapter 2.3.1.) Erikson, 1968: Fowler 1935
d: meaning of work c How have your colleagues affected your volunteer work? Factors in figure 7 (chapter 2.3.1.) Darley & Latane 1968; Oliner &
Oliner 1988, Smith 1981
d: impact of work d Do you find your colleagues active in volunteer work?
8 Values and behaviour
a: sample group a What do you value in life? All values Schwartz 2012
a: sample group b How does that reflect your behaviour? All values Schwartz 2012
Table 4. Aims and theoretical backgrounds in the survey
39
Population and distribution
The survey was targeted for cabin crew members of Finnair who perform, have performed or wish to
perform some type of altruistic behaviour. The recruitment for the participants happened via
Facebook, Yammer and WhatsApp by sharing the survey link and explanation of the research and
shortly also of the researcher. Choosing the suitable Facebook groups and Yammer group was based
on the will to get as many of the cabin crew members who consider themselves somehow altruistic.
The primary distribution groups were Finnair’s Yammer site, which is meant for cabin crew members,
yet it is visible for all the Finnair employees, and closed Facebook group (a) of “benefactor cabin
crew members”. The secondary groups for wider spreading was two other closed Facebook groups
(b) and (c) and (d) WhatsApp group chat for author’s cabin crew course mates. The primary channels
were expected to produce most relevant answers, however specific data on which site lead to an
answer is not available. The survey link was open for 11 days from 24th of April to 4th of May in
2020, and the distribution timing was planned beforehand to be as efficient as possible. Distribution
and reached population of the survey is presented in Table 5 below. Many of the comments include
colleagues tagging other colleagues. The comments also include author’s comment to raise the post
to front page. The size of group is an approximate to the nearest hundred expect on WhatsApp to the
nearest ten.
Distribution of the survey
Yammer Facebook (a) Facebook (b) Facebook (c) WhatsApp
Posting day Day 1 Day 1 Day 4 Day 10 Day 1
Uplifting day Day 4
Day 10 Day 10 Day 10 - -
Group size ≈ 2500 ≈ 500 ≈ 1900 ≈ 400 ≈ 20
Reach amount 955 ? ? ? 23
Post reactions 14 likes
19 comments
13 likes
9 comments
10 likes
9 comments 2 likes 4 comments
Total answers 59
Number of answers per day
Day1 Day2 Day3 Day4 Day5 Day6 Day7 Day8 Day9 Day10 Day11
18 7 3 11 11 4 0 0 0 3 2
Table 5. Distribution of the survey
One of the most asked questions when conducting research is how much data is enough data (Tuomi
& Sarajärvi, 2018), even though in qualitative research the amount of data is not vital for the research
40
to success (Eskola & Suoranta, 1998; & Vilkka, 2015). Usually can be considered there to be enough
data when new participants do not offer any new information for the study, which is called saturation.
However, for saturation to happen, the researcher needs to know exactly what they are looking for.
(Eskola & Suoranta, 1998) Saturation is important for a good case study, as via that the researcher
might find new information which challenges the research design and hence the results (Eriksson &
Kovalainen, 2016, p. 145). Via wide enough research group this might happen. Therefore, in case
studies, case study is ready when all the relevant evidence has been explored. In a good case, all the
alternative perspectives are explained and they answer the research question (Eriksson & Kovalainen,
2016, p. 145). Hence, the aim was to get as wide of a population group as possible; different age of
crew members in different positions.
Ethics of questionnaire
Via online survey, the research can be ethically accepted as it keeps the anonymity of the answerer
during the whole process (Eskola & Suoranta, 1998). The only personal information the answerer is
asked is age and position in the company but answering those is not compulsory. The survey is
implemented via online form software called eLomake to keep the identity, as the instruction was
given from the company that platforms such as GoogleForms were not allowed. Hence, the web
survey platform was chosen to be provided by University of Eastern Finland, because the researcher
can limit who is able to see the replies, which is only the researcher herself. However, the small yet
possible problem with anonymity is that there might always be ways to identity the respondent, i.e.
via finding out the IP-address of the answerer exists (Vilkka, 2015). For safety, the answers are
deleted online as soon as possible, and no kind of tracking is performed. To help to keep the
anonymity, the distribution of surveys is a common link rather than e-mail invitation, to not be able
to identify the answerer (Sue & Ritter, 2015, p. 27). The fact that the researcher is a fellow colleague
promising the anonymity might also increase the trust of the respondent since the cabin crew work
also requires trusting colleagues, and that is also why the ethics of the survey are taken care of.
3.3. Methods of data analysis
Implementation of analysis
The different analysis methods used for different questions are shown in Table 6 below. The order in
the table is same as in the following analysis-chapter and follows the supportive research questions.
41
Left section on the table shows the theme of the questions while the colored sections show type of
questions as well as style of analysis. Principally, all unstructured questions are analyzed via content
analysis while the analysis methods variate in structured questions. Specifically, in order to find out
answers to first supportive question, survey questions 2a-c, 3b-c, 6d, 8a-d were looked at with
frequency and content analysis. To answer second supportive question, survey questions 2b-c, 3b-c,
4c, 4e, 5a-c, 6a were looked at with mean values, sum variables and content analysis. To answer third
supportive question, survey questions 4a-b, 4d, 6b-c were looked at with frequency and content
analysis. To answer fourth supportive question, survey questions 7a-d were looked at with content
analysis with some comparison from survey questions 3b and 6d.
DATA ANALYSIS METHODS
Theme Survey question Method
a: Who are altruistically behaving cabin crew members?
Basic information 2a
Structured Frequencies
Volunteer work 6d
Basic information 2b
2c
Cabin crew work 3b
3c
Values & behavior 8a
Unstructured Content analysis 8b
b: What factors are important for altruistically behaving cabin crew members?
Volunteer work
5a Structured
Mean values
Sum analysis 5b
4e Unstructured Content analysis
5a
Structured
Mean values
Sum variables
Basic Information 2b
2c
Cabin crew work 3c
3b
Volunteer work
6d
5c Mean values
4e
Unstructured Content analysis 6a
4c
c: What kind of altruistic behavior do cabin crew members have?
Volunteer work
4a
Unstructured Content analysis 4b
4a
4a
6b Structured Frequencies
6c
4d Unstructured Content analysis
d: What kind of meaning does work as a cabin crew member have for altruistic behavior?
Cabin crew work & volunteer work 7a
Unstructured Content analysis 7b
Cabin crew work 3b Structured Frequencies
Volunteer work 6d
Cabin crew work & volunteer work 7c
Unstructured Content analysis 7d
Table 6. Methods of data analysis
42
Unstructured questions analysis
Unstructured questions are analyzed via content analysis; hence content analysis is applied to each
supportive research question. Content analysis in general is a flexible method and there is no specific,
right or simple way to do it. (Elo & Kyngäs, 2007, p. 113) Content analysis follows its name; it
focuses on what in the content (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2016, p. 121). It aims to provide an outcome
with coded categories or concepts that help to draw clearer image of the topic studied (Elo & Kyngäs,
2007) and via that and possible division, enable to find out frequency or occurrence (Vaismoradi,
Turunen, & Bondas, 2013, p. 399). Coding system in general is typical for case study (Eriksson &
Kovalainen, 2016, p. 140). Content analysis has different aspects, more specific, qualitative or
quantitative. Since conclusions that are only based of message content are not appropriate
(Neuendorf, 2002; ref. Hall, 2018), the data will be analysed via both methods as an attempt to raise
trustworthiness. Use of both is recommended by Holsti (1969) as they complement each other (Riffe
et al., 2019).
More specific; qualitative content analysis aims to understand the available data and create a
realistic and whole description of the studied phenomenon. It aims to describe and draw “big picture”.
Hence it is used to understand the meaning of the issues under study (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2016,
pp. 120-121), especially emotions and attitudes (Grbich, 2013, p. 197) in a subjective way (Hall,
2018, p. 399). It can be used to analyse unknown phenomenon (Vaismoradi et al., 2013, p. 399) and
is suitable for big set of written documentation (Grbich, 2013, p. 189). As a disadvantage, qualitative
content analysis might lead for too bias sampling strategies (Grbich, 2013, p. 197). Analysing process
is happened via coding. Coding mainly originates from the data (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2016, p.
120), meaning action of developing concepts and patterns during reading (Hall, 2018, p. 401)
On contrast, quantitative content analysis aims to quantify qualitative data and transform it into
variables (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2016, pp. 120, 126). The nature of quantitative content analysis is
objective and systematic via statistical methods (Riffe et al., 2019). It can be simply used to count
how many there is something (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005, p. 1284) and consequently it has been
criticised on putting too much emphasis on appearance of comparative frequency (Riffe et al., 2019).
The process of quantitative content analysis follows redefined theory-based coding schemes
(Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2016, p. 120) and hence it needs existing theory.
43
The content analysis process in this thesis is conventional: study starts from observation, which was
noticing the altruistic behaviour in the first place among colleagues of the author, followed by
defining keyword or codes during analysis (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005, p. 1286). The codes are created
while reading by marking certain topics with certain colours. Via that, some subcategories occurred
which were then joined to main categories to each question. Some categories were predetermined,
such as values to Schwartz theory, which can be called theory-based or deductive analysis. Some
categories were formed from data, such as actual behaviour, which can be called data-driven or
inductive analysis. (Tuomi & Sarajärvi, 2018) For some questions, however, quantitative method is
more suitable. Teherfore manifest content analysis, where identifying and quantifying content or
words is already existing, in order to count the frequency of content or words (Kondracki & Wellman,
2002; Potter & Levine-Donnerstein, 1999; ref. Hiesh & Shannon, 2005, p.1283) is also used.
Structured question analysis
Analysing structured question is partly done by analysing individual variables, such as demographic
information. Frequency counting or distribution was used in supportive research questions a and c,
basically to see which frequencies raised as highest (Tuomivaara, 2005, p. 31). For example, how
many of the sample group would like to do more volunteer work helps to create an image of number
of times each factor occurred (Boundless Statistics, 2020). In addition, frequency polygon is used in
one section to compare two samples via illustrative way (Scott, 1985, p. 348).
Supportive research question b used several different quantitative methods. Counting mean values
and sum variables is used so that the values of Schwartz can be put into numeric order among sample
group. For example, if questions 5b: a-b presented Schwartz’s values of self-direction, the average
numeric value of both a and b questions was first calculated and then combined together. After this,
the mean values of each values were compared so that all ten values could be put into numeric order,
or into a queue (Akyildiz & Bolch, 1988, p. 77) to see which ones raised to be the most and less
important of all Schwartz values. The survey had two question of each values – except benevolence
and universalism, which were assumed to be the strongest of values and hence studied more closely.
However, for this comparison, those questions were combined so that the numeric value was
representing as if two questions. Mean values advantages in its ability to process performance
measures without calculating the standardization constants (Akyildiz & Bolch, 1988, p. 78). To
increase the reliability and validity, questions presenting each value are measured with Cronbach
alfa to see internal consistency of the questions (Tavakol & Dennick, 2011, p. 53).
44
Sum analysis allows to count separate factors that measure the same factor (KvantiMOTV, 2009).
Therefore, it was used to see if any possible relation between certain factors to altruistic values, in
this case benevolence and universalism, were to be found. Firstly, the repliers were divided into each
variable factor and the mean value for each question presenting each factor was calculated. Via this,
it was possible to see how strongly some factor were impacting altruistic values, hence, which factors
raised to be the most important to each group. The coding of numbers was reserved to ease the reading
(KvantiMOTV, 2009). Since the sample group of the survey ended up being rather small for
quantitative analysis, the quantitative analysis is mainly used as a support for qualitative analysis.
Process of data analysis
Firstly, the data is taken from survey provider to Excel. Secondly, the elimination of unsuitable
answers is proceeded to avoid careless responses which might affect the results (Meade & Craig,
2012, p. 453). Thirdly, the data is analysed via several presented methods, depending on the question.
The analysing and reporting approach are narrative, which suits quantitative and qualitative research
(Brannen & O'Connell, 2016, p. 24). Fourthly, the Finnish coding and categories were translated into
English to fit the language of the thesis. Fifthly, after analyzing each section separately, the empirical
findings are compared with each other to find out how values and behavior link together, and how
the analyzed findings fit the presented theoretical framework of the research. These are presented in
the last chapter while the analyzing and findings are presented in the following chapter.
45
4. FINDIGS
4.1. Altruistic cabin crew members
The first analysis chapter of the finding aims to answer supportive question of ‘What kind of
characteristics do altruistically behaving cabin crew members have? and therefore it provides an
image of the sample group; who are discussed as altruistic cabin crew members in this analysis.
Volunteer experience, sociodemographic information and cabin crew experience are presented in this
chapter. Also, values in general and how those reflect to behaviour of the sample group are explained
via Schwartz’s value dimension.
The survey had two questions to measure whether the answerer was suitable or not for the survey and
hence to answer the research question of ‘Why do cabin crew members behave in an altruistic way?’
First question asked about having any type volunteer or charity experience and second about working
as a cabin crew member for Finnair. In case of no answer was given to either, the survey finished
automatically. The total amount of replies to the survey was 59. From that, all of the repliers said to
work or have worked as cabin crew members for Finnair and were suitable for participant for the
survey. Hence, the question about having any type of experience with volunteer or charity work
operated as a difference factor. From that, 57 replies were suitable, making it the total amount for the
replies used for the analysis.
Overall experience with volunteer work
Figure 12. Sample group’s experience with volunteer work
46
Figure 12 above presents overall experience with volunteer work, which was acquired in quantitative
data via frequencies. On the left side, the distribution of having any experience with some type of
volunteer or charity work is shown, which is also the reply set for the analysis. 35 (62%) replied to
currently do some type of volunteer work and 19 (33%) to have previously done some type of
volunteer work. 4 answered not to have done but would like to do some type of volunteer work.
However, when reading through answers, 3 (5%) of them listed concrete examples and also years of
volunteer work they have done. Hence, a clear impression of either false answer or understanding to
first question appeared, as everything else within their replies seemed to be so considered throughout.
Therefore, 3 of them was decided to be used after all and only 1 was deleted from answers.
Additionally, 1 answer was marked to not have done any volunteer work and was directly guided
towards end and hence, 2 answers were deleted. On the right side above, the figure shows how long
any type of volunteer work has been done. The average years of survey group to have done volunteer
work is 14,5 years and experience variated from 0 years to 50 years. 6 people did not say how many
years they have been doing some type of volunteer work, since answering to the question was not
compulsory. No separation between doing currently or earlier volunteer work is made, since the
values are expected to stay rather same throughout time (Schmitt et al. 1993, p. 118) and later in
survey it was fairly difficult to know if replier was referring to previous or earlier volunteer work.
Socio-demographic information
Figure 13. Sample group’s socio-demographic information
47
General information about the answerers for analysis are explained in Figure 13 above via frequencies
from quantitative data. On the left side, a chart of gender ratio is drawn. As shown, clear majority of
answerers, 52 (91%), were women, 4 (7%) were men and 1 (2%) did not want to tell. The distribution
by gender is greatly uneven. On the right of the figure the age distribution is provided. Age gap
variated from 22 to 65, and the average age of a replier was 45,7. The biggest group of answerers
belonged to the age group of 50-59 years with 21 answers. Two repliers did not want to tell their age.
Cabin crew position and experience
Figure 14. Sample group’s experience in cabin crew work
Figure 14 above is conducted via frequencies from quantitative data, and on the left it presents how
most repliers, 40 (70%), work as a cabin crew member and 17 (30%) different type of cabin crew
superiors: CPU 13 (23%), CLP 3 (5%), PXM 1 (2%). The supervisors do also cabin crew work on a
regular basis. On the right side of the figure, experience as a cabin crew member in general is shown.
Mediocre of years working as a cabin crew member within research group was 19,2; from 1 year of
experience to over 40-year long career. Majority of answerers have been flying for 0-9 or 30-39 years.
Due to identity privacy, answering to role in the cabin or work experience was not compulsory and
hence both of those had some blank answers. Even though the company has nearly huge amount of
cabin crew members, recognizing person via their gender and age together with certain, more rare
position at work, age or gender, might give away the identity of replier. Hence, the basic information
was kept very short to ask only what is really needed and no individual analysis will be done in order
to keep the privacy.
48
Values in general
Figure 15. Appearance of Schwartz’s values in general
In Figure 15 above the analysing of values and behavior in general is shown via content analysis. The
data occurred from unstructured questions and provided both quantitative content for the figure and
qualitative content for further analysis. Replier was asked what they value in life, which is shown in
green bar in the figure, and how that reflects to their behaviour, which is shown in orange bar. Mostly
all of the value answers consisted of list of nouns: some answers just a few nouns, some answers a
longer list, and all of them were marked into own codes. In behaviour question, the case was quite
18
49
57
8
14
54
341
1
1
7
4
15
33
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
PRIORITY OF SCHWARTZ VALUES IN GENERAL
Values in general Values in general behavior
49
similar. Answers to both questions can be directly fitted to Schwartz’s Value theory (2012), hence
the categories were the different values of Schwartz and the subcategories were created via help of
Schwartz’s old, longer 56-item list. In the end, the total number of answers per each subcategory were
summed to tell the total number of each value being brought up. However, not all the answers were
possible to be categorised into Schwartz values, such as ‘My values reflect in my choices, decisions
and actions every day, in everything and in every community, I belong to’, yet most of them were
categorized – some to one category and some to several categories.
Values in general raised the importance of security (57 mentions), which included items like health,
general safety, work and colleagues and peace. Second biggest value was benevolence (54 mentions),
such as family and friends. Third value group was universalism (34 mentions), which included items
like nature, equality, social justice and helping others. After this, the frequencies of each item dropped
majorly. Fourth value group, self-direction (18 mentions) included freedom to choose, possibilities,
hobbies and education. Fifth value group is tradition (14 mentions), which involved affluent society,
regular, everyday life and being a Finn. Sixth value group of hedonism (9 mentions) contained of
feeling good, happiness and having free time and seventh value group of conformity (8 mentions)
mentioned respect and balance. Eight value group stimulation (4 answers) appeared via personal
progress and meaningful doing. Value groups of power and achievement did not appear in any
answers.
The biggest individual item stated (41 mentions) was the value towards families or friends the most,
making the values of benevolence strong. Second most frequent individual topic that appeared (32
mentions) was health, which belongs to security. Those two answers were clearly the most values
topics of all. Some values were explained very simply while some were explained more throughout,
such as ‘even though you would have close to nothing, you can always help another’ for universalism.
Likewise, ‘I appreciate the person I am today and what I am capable of. No longer will I do things
that are against my values.’ and ‘I am grateful for being brave enough to do the things I want to do’
for self-direction. Some answers could be categories into two values group, for example for security
and hedonism, such as ‘I love my job, however I value my free time’. Answer could be categorized to
even more than two categories, like this one which offered items for values od benevolence, security,
hedonism and self-direction; ‘I value my balanced life where tripartition happens: with myself, my
family and my friends. I value my work, free time and times when I don’t have anything to do. I value
health, happiness and hope.’
50
Behavior in general then raised the importance of universalism (33 mentions), from which majority
(26 mentions) includes items such as helping everyone and appreciating everyone. Other answers
come from ecological behavior, such as switching to vegetarian food, recycling, avoiding flying
outside of work. Second biggest group was benevolence (15 replies), which mostly consisted of
answers of aiming help, giving time and showing respect to family and friends. Behavior that can be
linked to security (7 mentions) was all who referred to taking care of own or family’s health, eating
well and relaxing. Conformity (4 mentions) then was brought up in comments were respect towards
social norms was highlighted. Values of hedonism, stimulation and self-direction (1 mention each)
included e.g. having freedom to go and do what they want and braveness to behave spontaneously.
Other values did not receive any mentions when asking the effect of values towards behaviour. Each
one answered that the values do affect their behavior.
Consequently, in general the values of security, benevolence and universalism are the most important.
In behaviour, then, the values of universalism and benevolence raised clearly above the rest. No
replies considered the values of power or achievement in neither values nor behavior.
4.2. Important factors for altruistic behavior
The second analysis chapter aims to answer the supportive question of ‘What is important in altruistic
behavior for cabin crew members?’ and it contemplates on different factors that are important for
altruistically behaving cabin crew members. Firstly, the importance of values is alleged. The altruistic
values are analysed via Schwartz’s value dimension, this time concentrating on values behind
altruistic action specifically. After values, other factors that affect altruistic behavior are expressed,
some that base on presented theory and some that raised from the data.
Importance of Schwartz values in altruistic behavior in quantitative data
51
Figure 16. Importance of Schwartz’s values in actual behavior
The repliers were asked to rate how important a certain structured question was for a person acting
altruistically. Each question represented some of Schwartz’s Values, to find out which values matter
the most in altruistic behavior. In Figure 16 above, 4 marks the most important and 0 as the least
important value. The mean value was calculated from questions representing each of the values. One
of the questions (5a: b) was completely left out for this measurement, since it fits both questions,
leaving two questions to represent benevolence and four for universalism. For mean of universalism,
questions were easily combined to two, so that other question concentrates on benefitting welfare of
people and community, and other one on benefitting welfare of nature and animals. Therefore, all
values had two questions which numeric value was combined for comparison.
As shown, benevolence and universalism are the strongest values with high ratings. All the individual
questions representing benevolence and universalism were ranked very important, expect the ones
considering helping animals or certain community. On the contrary, values of achievement, power
and conformity were ranked as less important values. Generally, most of the question which referred
to same Schwartz’s values were rated very closed to each other – except the questions representing
0,36
0,67
0,77
1,66
1,83
2,74
2,80
2,88
3,01
3,67
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4
10. Achievement
9. Power
8. Conformity
7. Security
6. Stimulation
5. Self-Direction
4. Hedonism
3. Tradition
2. Universalism
1. Benevolence
IMPORTANCE OF SCHWARTZ'S VALUES BEHIND
ALTRUISTIC ACTION
52
hedonism with numeric gap of 1 between ratings. This created both interesting deviation but also
confusion of the importance of certain value. Since the deviation might be a cause of failure in
creating the question, the statements were measured with Cronbach’s alpha to see how closely related
statements correlate with each other, though testing correlation with such few components per
statement might reduce alpha value (Tavakol & Dennick, 2011, p. 53). Table 7 below presents this.
Value Components and Used Variables Mean Cronbach α
BENEVOLENCE 3,67 0.65
Helping is as part of identity 3,64
Genuine and selfless will to help people close 3,70
UNIVERSALISM 3,01 0.53
Genuine and selfless will to help all people 3,41
Genuine and selfless will to help nature 3,16
Genuine and selfless will to help animals 2,86
Genuine and selfless will to help community 2,61
TRADITION 2,88 0.46
Helping as responsibility 2,78
Upbringing to help others 2,98
HEDONISM 2,80 0.45
Helping makes feel good 3,30
Helping gives nice change to days 2,30
SELF-DIRECTION 2,74 0.49
Will to do something significant 2,67
Help due to possibility to decide how and when to help 2,80
STIMULATION 1,83 0.78
Will to do something new and different 1,68
Helping as a positive challenge 1,98
SECURITY 1,66 0.48
Helping makes feel safe 1,56
Will to get content in life 1,76
CONFORMITY 0,77 0.76
Friends/Family/Community helps; will to belong to the group 1,02
Friends/Family/Community helps; urge to do volunteer work 0,53
POWER 0,67 0.51
Helping now will benefit later 0,95
Currently getting reward or benefit 0,39
ACHIEVEMENT 0,36 0.78
Helping makes look good in other people’s eyes 0,42
Seeking for common approval 0,30
Table 7. Mean values and Cronbach’s alpha in altruistic behavior
Generally, the higher the correlation, the better the item. As table above presents, in many of the
questions the correlation is rather low. The alpha value might change if e.g. in universalism, the
53
statements regarding animal or community would be deleted. However, this is not done since later in
the analysis the statements are needed individudally. The scales change, yet commonly alpha values
higher than 0.6 or 0.7 are considered acceptable (Griethuijsen et al. 2014; ref. Taber, 2017, p. 1278).
While some researches consider alpha values higher than 0.45 are acceptable and higher than 0.58
are satisfactory (Taber, 2017, p. 1278), some consider the contrary; all alpha values lower than 0.6.
questionable (George & Mallery, 2003; ref. Gliem & Gliem, 2003, s. 87). Thus, generally can be
considered that correlation in value questions is debatable and in this study, to measure the importance
in Schwartz’s values only in quantitative Likert-scale does not provide reliable data and therefore,
the qualitative data and analysis is needed.
Importance of Schwartz values in altruistic behavior in qualitative data
The survey asked importance in altruistic behavior in qualitative way as the reasons might be many.
While the quantitative research shows the importance benevolence and universalism, followed up by
tradition, hedonism and self-direction, only via qualitative content analysis from unstructured
questions it was possible to analyse that nearly all the values of Schwartz play a part in altruistic
behavior of cabin crew members. The examples below are not placed in the importance order as
previously presented, but instead they show the part of each value among cabin crew members in
general.
Qualitative study lifted especially hedonism. When asking why helping is important, many answers
either started directly with hedonistic point, such as ‘it gives me so much joy and happiness’ and ‘it
makes me feel good’ while some concluded their reasons to the fact of ‘…all of helping has given me
happiness’. Some considered hedonistic point to be the absolute main point in volunteer work or
charity work: ‘It is so lovely to be a helping hand!’. Hedonistic approach was often combined with
other values, and mostly it seemed to be connected to the common opinion how helping brings a
meaning or purpose to life – as well as giving joy to the receiver of help. For example, ‘It is rewarding
to be of use. That makes me feel good’ and ‘Well, helping itself is so nice! It brings me joy and it
makes me feel useful’ as well as ‘I feel valuable since I make someone happy with my action. That
then makes me happy.’ Purpose to life can in fact be categorised to several values by Schwartz (2012),
such as stimulation (daring, a varied life), hedonism (pleasure, enjoying life) and achievement
(influential, self-respect). Interestingly the value of achievement raised a lot in qualitative analysis,
even though it did not appear at all in quantitative analysis. In addition, self-direction was an
important value. For example: ‘I find it important that I can choose my own target’, ‘I can do what I
54
want and when I want without being too tied up’ and ‘It gives variety to my days’. In addition, it is
used as balancing of life: ‘It allows me to do something that paid job does not’. Stimulation appears
also in that many cabin crew members find the target of helping interesting, as well as appreciate the
target.
Likewise, many considered that helping now might help them later: ‘I help now because I can. One
can never know when tables turn and if they do, I would like to get help too.’ This was rather common
opinion; however, some find altruistic actions important now because they have earlier been the
receivers: as in filling the circle. In addition; ‘Volunteer work brings me joy, and I am happy if I can
bring others joy as well. However, I am not helping only because of altruistic reasons: while I help,
I meet new people and I learn interesting things. It is also my principle that stronger help weaker.
And also – roles might suddenly change.’ Therefore, a values of both power (preserving public
image) and security (reciprocation of favours) raise too, since principles are another important reason
as well: ‘I find it important to help those who need’., ‘Everyone can help!’ and ‘In my opinion: if you
can help, you must help’. One participant told ‘Honestly, I feel that I am quite selfish by nature.
Charity work is something I commit, even though it is not always nice or motivating. But I do it
because it is my principle. I value my principles higher than my current mood’. Sometimes principles
can be confused with values, but they might also be a motivating factor: ‘I want to meet people who
share same values than me’. In fact, communality was an important reason for many people helping:
‘I have met amazing people via volunteering.’, ‘I get to know teachers, students and other parents.
Hence, having an impact is easier’. Security value also includes the appreciation towards Finland,
which was also raised in other questions. For example, one replier explained ‘I am so lucky to be born
as Finnish! I try not to take our society’s matters, such as possibility for education and health
services, as well as gender equality and freedom of speech for granted. In addition, we still have
clean nature to enjoy!”. The importance of Finnish nature raised also in other comments; ‘I
appreciate our nature, and clean Finnish food it provides. However, I would like to get the Baltic Sea
to better condition.’ In addition, the value of tradition appears in answers since few replies told to
find helping important because they have learned that at home.
Most of the examples above show how volunteer work and charity work is valued because the helpers
get so much out of it themselves. Hence, all altruistic values are not purely only universalist or
benevolent yet there were a lot of those values as well, although mostly combined with other values.
Examples of answers that mainly find helping important because wanting to help the receiver are for
e.g. ‘If I don’t help, things will only get worse with poor people’ and ‘Charity work fixes when society
55
is inadequate.’. Society was also mentioned in ‘When you help those in need, you help the whole
society’ and in ‘Differences between fortunate and underprivileged are growing in our society.
Nowadays there are so many who have almost no possibilities to get a reasonable life’. Society can
also mean belonging to a group: ‘I need people myself. If I get a chance to help, why wouldn’t I? After
all, we don’t live alone in this planet and helping others is our duty. Everyone has a right for humane
life! We are responsible for each other, we need each other.’ In fact, especially raised the importance
of helping because one can, even though one would not have a lot to give; helping a little is better
than not helping at all. ‘Everyone can help’ and ‘I don’t have any money to give for help, but I help
other ways and I find it very important’ in comparison with ‘I feel like I have both time and money to
give and help others’. Generally, a common opinion seemed to be e.g. ‘Helping others does not lower
my standards of living’.
However, there were also other reasons why person explained they find helping important, which
appeared in qualitative content analysis. For example, the question of privilege raised out majorly.
The question 5a: b “I feel privileged, hence want to share good with others” was left out in previous
comparisons, even though it was ranked in the second highest values with numeric value of 3,64 and
hence its importance is clear due to the numeric value as well as its appearance in unstructured
answers. For example, ‘I feel so privileged since I am healthy, and I have a job and family, and
everything is fine.’ and ‘I am grateful for how my things are right now. Now I can help others, and I
want to help.’ In addition, one replier explained ‘I myself had very easy and safe childhood. I have
been living a bubble my whole youth. It is good I notice and acknowledge now how much help is
needed, and how much lonely children there are also in Finland’.
Therefore, as shown, the altruistic values of cabin crew members take in many different forms and
value groups. While the commonly considered altruistic values of universalism and benevolence
raised clearly to be the most important values in quantitative analysis, the importance of other values
raised in qualitative way. In the survey the unstructured question of why altruistic values matter was
placed before structured parts, and hence the answers to qualitative part might be the first thoughts
and even the primary thoughts because of the order. All things considered; cabin crew members have
plenty of different type of altruistic values.
Effect of different qualities towards altruistic values
56
From some structured questions, it was possible to draw relations between which factor has a meaning
to altruistic values and behavior. Since earlier in this analysis as well as based on previous researches
the values of benevolence and universalism from Schwartz’s Value Survey raised to be the most
important ones in altruistic behavior, they are used as a comparison values in tables below to some
predetermined factors that might influence altruistic values. Analysing is done via sum variables and
once again, numeric value means the higher the number, the more important the factor with maximum
number of 4 and minimum of 0. The following tables present each possible effecting factor and its
numeric values comparing to average numeric values. The amount of replies variate in each question,
since answering was not either compulsory and some participants did not want to answer.
Possible factor influencing altruistic values: GENDER
Value and value statement mean values Female
(N=52)
Male
(N=4)
Total
(N=56)
BENEVOLENCE 3,68 3,38 3,67
Helping as part of identity 3,64 3,50 3,64
Genuine and selfless will to help people close 3,73 3,25 3,70
UNIVERSALISM 3,07 2,44 3,01
Genuine and selfless will to help all people 3,43 3,00 3,41
Genuine and selfless will to help nature 3,24 2,25 3,16
Genuine and selfless will to help animals 2,92 2,50 2,86
Genuine and selfless will to help community 2,69 2,00 2,61
Table 8. Possible influencer to altruistic value: Gender
First, there is gender in Table 8 above. To test the effect of gender towards altruistic values is slightly
controversial due to highly uneven amount of female and male answerers, which is however rather
expected considering sex ratio in cabin crew work. However, to test the theories of e.g. Austin (1979)
of gender effecting altruistic values by women giving more help than men, Dietz et al. (2005) of
women to prior altruism higher than men or Thoman et al. (2014) of women choosing work partly
based on altruistic means is controversial because of that unbalance. Nonetheless, some presentations
about gender differences in altruistic values can be presented based on the table above, and hence a
conclusion about women having highly altruistic values be given since especially benevolence is
rated important and particularly helping people in inner circle. Nonetheless, the answers are greatly
affected by one male answer who rated everything as 1 expect helping being a part of him, which
majorly lowers male’s average.
57
Possible factor influencing altruistic values: AGE
Value and value statement mean
values
20-29
(N=8)
30-39
(N=10)
40-49
(N=12)
50-59
(N=20)
60+
(N=4)
Total
(=54)
BENEVOLENCE 3,75 3,50 3,58 3,80 3,63 3,67
Helping as part of identity 3,63 3,50 3,58 3,85 3,50 3,64
Genuine and selfless will to help
people close 3,88 3,50 3,58 3,75 3,75 3,70
UNIVERSALISM 3,41 2,65 3,10 2,96 2,94 3,01
Genuine and selfless will to help
all people 3,75 3,20 3,33 3,45 3,25 3,41
Genuine and selfless will to help
nature 3,38 3,00 3,17 3,15 3,25 3,16
Genuine and selfless will to help
animals 3,25 2,80 2,83 2,75 2,75 2,86
Genuine and selfless will to help
community 3,25 1,60 3,08 2,50 2,50 2,61
Table 9. Possible influencer to altruistic value: Age
Second, there is age in Table 9 above. Pantal et al. (2019), Piliavin & Charng (1990) and Krebs (1982)
studied interest to and importance of altruism to increase the over age and hence worth generally,
older people having stronger altruistic values. However, this is not visible in this study at all.
Generally, the value of benevolence is appreciated the more than universalism in all age groups and
especially strong it is among people of 50-59 years old. Universalism then is the least appreciated
with people 30-39 years old, where also the lowest value among all numeric values is with helping
communities; 1,60.
Table 10. Possible influencer to altruistic value: Position
Possible factor influencing altruistic values: POSITION
Value and value statement mean values Worker
(N=40)
Superior
(N=15)
Total
(N=55)
BENEVOLENCE 3,65 3,72 3,67
Helping as part of identity 3,60 3,75 3,64
Genuine and selfless will to help people close 3,70 3,69 3,70
UNIVERSALISM 3,15 2,66 3,01
Genuine and selfless will to help all people 3,40 3,44 3,41
Genuine and selfless will to help nature 3,30 2,81 3,16
Genuine and selfless will to help animals 3,08 2,31 2,86
Genuine and selfless will to help community 2,83 2,07 2,61
58
Thirdly, there is position in Table 10 above. Stern et al. (1995) studied social structure to result
values. Since in this study, social structure is considered as position at work, the answerers were
divided into two groups: 40 cabin crew members and 15 cabin crew superiors. As shown, superiors
find benevolence slightly more important than universalism. Questions considering universalism
were clearly more important for cabin crew members than superiors. Especially the matter of helping
certain community, animals and nature were divided greatly by the position, since cabin crew
members valued those much higher than superiors. The biggest gap was in helping communities;
0,76.
Possible factor influencing altruistic values: WORK EXPERIENCE
Value and value statement
mean values
0-9
(N=14)
10-19
(N=5)
20-29
(N=9)
30-39
(N=14)
40+
(N=1)
Total
(N=43)
BENEVOLENCE 3,61 3,60 3,73 3,75 3,00 3,67
Helping as part of identity 3,50 3,80 3,78 3,71 3,00 3,64
Genuine and selfless will to help
people close 3,71 3,40 3,67 3,79 3,00 3,70
UNIVERSALISM 3,27 2,35 3,00 3,02 3,25 3,01
Genuine and selfless will to help
all people 3,50 3,20 3,22 3,36 3,00 3,41
Genuine and selfless will to help
nature 3,50 2,20 3,22 3,21 4,00 3,16
Genuine and selfless will to help
animals 3,21 2,00 2,89 2,71 3,00 2,86
Genuine and selfless will to help
community 2,86 2,00 2,67 2,79 3,00 2,61
Table 11. Possible influencer to altruistic value: Work experience
Fourthly, work experience in Table 11 above was used as comparison out of interest rather than
theory base. Total of 14 repliers did not answer how long they have been doing cabin crew member
work, but the rest have been marked in the figure. This shows how cabin crew members who have
been working from 20 to 40 years find the value of benevolence to be very important comparing to
other groups. Universalism is the most important to those who have been working from 0-9 years as
cabin crew members, and on contrary those who have been working 10-19 years rated help towards
animals and community quite low, which remarkable lowered the average.
Possible factor influencing altruistic values: VOLUNTEER EXPERIENCE
Value and value statement
mean values
0-9
(N=21)
10-19
(N=12)
20-29
(N=9)
30-39
(N=4)
40+
(N=4)
Total
(N=50)
BENEVOLENCE 3,57 3,58 3,83 3,88 3,88 3,67
59
Helping as part of identity 3,57 3,58 3,89 3,75 3,75 3,64
Genuine and selfless will to help
people close 3,57 3,58 3,78 4,00 4,00 3,70
UNIVERSALISM 3,06 2,96 3,08 3,19 2,81 3,01
Genuine and selfless will to help
all people 3,29 3,33 3,44 3,75 3,75 3,41
Genuine and selfless will to help
nature 3,19 3,08 3,33 3,25 2,50 3,16
Genuine and selfless will to help
animals 3,19 2,42 2,67 3,25 2,50 2,86
Genuine and selfless will to help
community 2,57 3,00 2,89 2,50 2,50 2,61
Table 12. Possible influencer to altruistic value: Volunteer experience
And finally, volunteer experience was compared in Table 12 above from 50 answers that replied the
question. It does not base on theory, yet after noticing the importance in the longer volunteer work is
being done, the more important the value of benevolence is, it is presented here. After all, it is the
strongest effect among all the presented values. However, similar timeline is not able to be drawn
with universalism, yet quite the contrary.
Other important factors for altruistic behavior
Figure 17. Other important factors in altruistic behavior
0,77
1,79
1,95
2,21
2,43
2,53
2,77
3,47
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4
Worry for the object
Hobby
Continous work role
Leisure trips
Work trips
Situation
Growing older
Awareness
IMPORTANT FACTORS IN ALTRUISTIC BEHAVIOR
60
The repliers were asked to rate how important a certain structured question was for a person behind
altruistic behavior. While earlier in the analysis, each question represented some of Schwartz’s
Values, now each question presents other theory-based factors that were alleged to raise important.
Once again, in the Figure 17 above, 4 symbols the most important and 0 as the least important value.
The mean value was counted from quantitative data. In addition, some answers from unstructured
questions via content analysis that do not fit into Schwartz’s theory are exampled shortly here.
Int the figure, the most important cause was awareness (‘I am aware that my help is needed’). Elster
(2006) said that altruistic motivations are affected with different type of emotions such as empathy,
as well as norms that society have given, which comes strongly in this. The empathic side was brought
up by several repliers elsewhere in the data as well, such as; ‘In the work community full of empathic
people, everyone sees others in need or tragedy.’ and ‘Cabin crew members commonly are very
social, loyal and energetic people, who usually take care of purchases, tasks, charity and school work
organization and delegating. Hence, we are expected to act accordingly.’ This category, however, is
suitable for not only emotions but for general knowledge or interest about the world and social norms.
Hence, it partly goes together with the second most important reason that was age (‘The older I grow,
the more I feel the urge to help), from Piliavin & Charng (1990) and Pantal et al. (2019). It is the
second most popular category and the numeric value rates it to be rather important, yet it was not
brought up by any participant in unstructured questions answers.
Third most popular category of situation raised majorly in unstructured answers, yet it’s rating (‘I
help because some situation or matter awakes me for the need of help’) is very much in the middle.
Piliavin & Charng (1990) stated that comparing to day-to-day situations, people tend to help more
when there is a situation that awakes them for that, such as disaster. However, as seen later in this
analyze, it is an important factor for many people after all. Fourth and fifth category represented the
work and leisure trips (‘My work trips have widened my world view and increased my will to help’
and My work trips have widened my world view and increased my will to help’). The answers divide
quite in the middle in the scale, even though as shown later in analysis, most feel that work impacts
their volunteer or charity work. The factors of continuous work role (‘I help people at work and the
role sticks on me during free time’), hobby (‘Helping is my hobby’) and worry for the object (‘I am
scared how my object of helping would manage without my help’) were closer to not important than
very important.
Causes for beginning altruistic behavior
61
Figure 18. Causes for begin with altruistic behavior
In addition to values, also some other factors might be the cause for altruistic behavior among sample
group. Hence, the survey asked what got participant involved with help in the first place, and variety
of reasons are shown in Figure 18 above. The data was analyzed via quantitative content analysis
since the answers were quite short and sharp to this question. The categories appeared from data and
they provide the most popular reasons for starting to help.
As presented, the most important reason is that something awakened the person that their help is
needed, hence a situational factor mattered. It could be for example COVID-19 situation; ‘Corona
situation added my free time as well as need for help’, other financial crisis; ‘When I got laid-off
seven years ago, I suddenly got plenty of time in my hands which I wanted to use for something good’
or a concrete ask for help; ‘I have always wanted to help but I actually only started when I saw an ad
of friend volunteering in magazine/newspaper’. In addition, own experience was a big factor; ‘I have
been in trouble myself and I don’t want other people to experience the same’ and ‘I got help after my
child died. Now it is my turn’. These indicate how some situational factor might affect a long time;
something that once happened to person might later influence the will to help, when it is possible for
the helper.
16
14
9
6
4 43
1
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
REASONS WHY HELPING STARTED
62
Second biggest factor was friends and family, which included both examples of them and being
inspired by them. Some people have learned the acts of volunteering or charity at home, and
especially the example of mother was a big effect in several answers; ‘The example of my mother
inspired me to join as well’ while many told it has been in their bringing up; ‘I have grown in a family
full of actively helping people. I have learned that if I see something, I can help to fix it.’ Some said
that basically talking and hearing about volunteer or charity work from their friends got them
involved. This category involved also influence of other people; ‘I went to school, which was thought
by catholic nuns, who emphasized that helping underprivileged must be done purely altruistically.’
Third category was a will to help; mostly just a general will to be of use appeared. Fourthly, replier’s
own interests or knowledge leads people to start helping; ‘I realized how everyone’s contribution is
needed because this world is so unfair’. Fifthly, people got involved with helping simply by being
asked by someone. It might be e.g. a friend, colleague, someone at the fair and it involved as many
people as an impact of hobby. That category involved both own and children’s hobbies, either to
keep them ongoing which is mostly happened because of volunteer work, or to effect on hobby
activity; ‘During my horse driving hobby times I saw things I shouldn’t have seen’. One person said
to help because wants to experience new things. Few people did not know how their helping began.
Causes for continuing altruistic behavior
41
1612
97 6 5 4
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
REASONS FOR CONTINUING HELPING
63
Figure 19. Causes for continuing altruistic behavior
Participants were also asked why they keep on doing altruistic actions. Again, the data was analyzed
via quantitative content analysis due to clear and short replies. Categories raised from data and are
presented in Figure 19 above. They offer the most popular causes why help is or was being continued
after. However, no separation was made between those who currently help and those who have
previously helped since aim was to see if reasons for continuing behavior differ from beginning
behavior. Generally, causes were very similar, and some answers were as if answered in wrong place.
Answers reveal that reasons are different in starting and continuing of helping. Some of the reasons
for behavior to happen are greatly affected by values, while some are the cause of situational or
another factor; hence, some of the reasons are internal and some external.
Clearly the most important reason on why cabin crew members help is because they find it important
for the helper as their selves. This category concluded mostly about finding the target important and
helping out of respect, which again makes the helper feel good about themselves and gives them
hedonic pleasure. Also, many people said to find the act of helping itself important and a big part of
themselves – as it is a right thing to do. In addition, they also find important for the helped. The
popular opinion in that is that the target is not being helped enough.
Third biggest category was helping because they feel as if they have something to give. It could be
money, information or skills – but also lots of genuine will. However, some people felt also that
helping makes them feel as if they can get something out of it later on. The benefit they might get
later on might be experience, e.g. to use in work such as ‘I wanted experience with working in events.
It might also be meeting new people and get the feeling of community; ‘It is a win-win situation: I
get happy mind, good friends, experiences, while I do good’. Hence, altruistic behavior is continued
to do because it might be used as a given for good conscience. Therefore, helping is also happened
because the feel as if they have something to get.
Between those, there is reason of people find helping to be rather easy. It might be easy to join or re-
join, easy to try new things or do in other ways. Other quite unpopular reasons are e.g. situation.
Although it seemed to be highly important factor at beginning to do volunteer work, it does not play
as important part in continuous doing. However, situational reasons have affected the amount, target
or style they help. Situation can be, once again, for example COVID-19, which either gave them time
to help or aided them to realize the need for help. For example, ‘This situation is difficult for single
64
parents or physically challenged. They really need help’. This partly goes together with getting
opportunities, which also includes to be able to control who, what, when and how to help. However;
the reason might also be that the example of friend or family keeps them working within charity or
volunteer. While that was an important reason to start helping, it is not considered an important factor
for continuous altruistic behavior.
4.3. Altruistic behavior of cabin crew members
The third analysis chapter aims to answer the supportive question of ‘What kind of altruistic behavior
do cabin crew members have?’ and it presents the types of altruistic behavior found in the data. The
replier could define themselves what they consider as altruistic behavior, such as volunteer or charity
work. To ease the reading, all the different types of volunteer, charity and similar work will be
referred as help.
Type of altruistic behavior performed
Figure 20. Types of altruistic behavior
When asked what kind of help sample group gives, several different ways appeared as shown in
Figure 20 above. Via content analysis, those ways can be divided into several categories that appeared
33
23
16 15 1412 11 10
5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
TYPE OF HELPING
65
from the data. Some answers included numerous helping ways, which appeared to be equally strong
or important, while some answers included one. Some answers tell the ways they help now, while
some include examples from past. Hence, the variety of answers was vast. No separation between
previous or current help is made, and all the ways and examples are included into answers. Analyzing
style was content analysis to get both the frequencies and further understanding of each category.
Different types of donations were clearly the most popular way to help; 33 answers mentioned to do
different type of donating. Most of these, 18, were donating money to different organizations, but
also donating clothes, other goods, and food was a popular way to help. Answers like ‘I have a
godchild in Zambia and have four organizations that I give monthly donations. The oldest one is from
year 1994’ and ‘I donate clothes and goods to underprivileged Finnish families and to Russian
Karelia. I also donate money’ were rather trendy since most answers told to donate in several different
ways or to several different organizations. In addition, donation was also often combined with other
type of helping. For example, ‘For years now I have been donating money to several different actors.
(Other text). This year I also dispatch and collect food.’ which leads to the second most popular
category of collections.
Collections were raised up in 23 answers. Joint and chest collection appeared, as well as fundraising
for different organizations. However, clearly the most popular way was collecting food, which
included both distributing and delivering of food. The total amount of collection mentioned was 19,
with 14 of them in food distribution, most apparently via same organization. For example, ‘I pack,
carry and distribute food to poor underprivileged in Apuna ry. I have also collected money for other
organizations.’ was included also into this category, as well as ‘When I was younger, I collected
money via church. Nowadays I organize charity events’, which also gave data for the following
category.
Organizing of events raised as third most popular category with 16 answers. Most of the events were
organized for groups of people, e.g. veterans, kids or refugees, such as ‘I have been volunteering in
charity events for kids as well as veterans.’ Some events were aiming to campaign matters, e.g. cancer
or food sharing, such as ‘I have organized a Movember event in our crew lobby to raise money for
prostatic cancer’. Also organizing or helping voluntary in camps was included into this category, as
well as many unknown events.
66
Different kind of administrative work raised in 15 answers. Seven people said to work for free or
as a board member of some organization, such as ‘I am a voluntary treasurer with budget of 125 000
euros for youngsters activity’, ‘I am a financial advisor for people who need help’ and ‘I am a board
member in a student association’. In addition, four people told to have founded their own charity
organizations – one person said to have founded two. Other activity that was included into this
category was different type of coordination and team leading.
The category of other volunteering included different type of physical volunteer work and total of
14 answers was categorized into this one. One example was performing different type of everyday
help, such as grocery shopping, IT help, renovating or nursing, and these types of helps appeared in
8 answers. As an example; ‘I renovate for poor people, and via different ways I help colleagues that
have dropped out of work life.’ and ‘I do the shopping for older people and help them with technology.
Also, if they need other type of everyday help, I am there’. In addition, teaching, mentoring or
translating was included into this, such as ‘I teach Finnish, and I also work as Finnish language
godparent’. Helping of animals was also categorized into this, as it is physical helping and does not
suit to other categories. Examples of helping animals was dog raising, such as ‘I have been raising
guide dogs for visually impaired people’ and animal rescuing, like ‘I nurse 13 dogs in my home’.
Situational volunteering included act that is done because of certain happening, such as disaster or
pandemic, and 11 answers included answers suitable for this category. COVID-19 pandemic was
brought up in 8 answers. Examples of help given due to that was Lentävä läksytuki and
Valmiusjoukkue as well as everyday helps, such as grocery shopping because of pandemic; ‘During
COVID-19 situation, I started helping in several different ways.’ Besides, the eruption of volcano
Eyjafjallajökull in 2010 was brought up with examples of giving assistance during that by helping
and accommodating people, such as tourists or colleagues. Moreover, natural disaster affecting
around world, such as Japan earthquake and Kashmir floods were told to create help. Some answers
gave an impression of helping only during some situational matter, while some added their help
during situational matters.
Being a friend was raised up in 10 answers. This included being friend volunteer, or support person
to e.g. single mothers or family, or for a disabled kid. Also, phone friendship was mentioned.
Examples such as ‘I have been in friend volunteering via Finnish Red Cross for 13 years.’ and ‘I
recently started being a phone friend with a senior’ show the variation, such as length and type, of
friend volunteering.
67
12 answers did not explain the way they have given help; hence it was defined as undefined. Some
answers included long answers and examples of many categories, such as ‘I have helped people
during volcano eruption in organizing and founding of helping group. (other text) I have organized
an event. I have founded a charity organization. I have organized a doctor to Indian slum, provided
hygienic education and toilet to a village. I have organized help to flood areas and helped
organizations that work with Japan earthquakes. I have started a project to educate cabin crew to
help in health care. I have been camp counselor and assistant in camp for disabled’. On the contrary,
some answers were quite stub, such as ‘I assist monetarily’. Hence, the concentration of this is not so
in the numbers of each category but more on what they provide; a total picture of actual behavior
towards volunteer work, charity work and helping among cabin crew members.
In addition, there was one more category; volunteering while traveling. It was mentioned the least;
in 5 answers. One had done internship in children’s home in developing countries and other had
volunteered in various organizations during abroad travels. One answer mentioned to help during
work trips. ‘I have visited Indian slums and organized music moments there’, ‘Helping homeless dogs
in Spain’ and ‘When I was young and spend a gap year, I did a lot of different charity work’ are
examples how voluntourism or helping abroad (outside Finland) was mentioned in answers. This
guides us to the question of where do cabin crew members help, which is presented next.
Location of benefactor and beneficiary of altruistic behavior
Figure 21. Location of altruistic behavior
68
The Figure 21 above presents the place of both helper and helped via quantitative frequency counting.
The pie chart on the left tells where the helper is located. Answering of that survey question was not
compulsory, and therefore the numbers do not play a major part in analyzing. However, since the
nature of work of research group requires lots of travelling abroad, the question itself is noteworthy.
Nonetheless, 44 (85%) answers told to help or have helped only in Finland, while 8 (15%) answers
told to help or have helped in Finland and other countries as well. Countries outside of Finland were
Nepal, Kenya, India, Thailand and Pakistan. Two of these countries, India and Thailand, are
destinations where Finnair flies, or have flew with Finnish cabin crew. Not a single answer told to
only help abroad.
Likewise, to place of helping, also the subject of help was found to be mostly in Finland with 74
(67%) mentions, while people elsewhere got 10 (9%) mentions and animals 5 (5%). Once again, big
part of answers did not include the subject of help, while some answers had several examples.
Therefore, the numbers are only approximate in the figure above, which shows where the target of
help is located, divided by people and nature or animals. The division does not base on any theory
but is shown only to draw a common image of cabin crew members actual behavior.
Aim and receiver of altruistic behavior
30
25
21
14
8
5 4 3
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
RECEIVER OF HELP
69
Figure 22. Receiver of altruistic behavior
To see more closely who do cabin crew members help, another division is made via content analysis.
The categories are raised from answers and combined together and are presented in Figure 22 above.
Since the aim of the help did not appear in 21 answers, the numbers are yet again simply indicative.
Most of all, cabin crew members aim their help for different families, since it appeared in 30
mentions. Especially poor or underprivileged families are target in help, with 24 mentions. Other type
of families that receive help are e.g. single parent families and refugee families. Second largest
category of help receivers are children with 25 answers. 9 answers did not specify what kind of
children get help, leaving 16 answers to explain more throughout what type of children they help. 7
of these told to help children in developing countries, e.g. slum kids or children’s home in
underdeveloped countries. For example, ‘I have organized music activities for kids of Indian slums,
and I have donated money to slum day care. I also donate monthly to Unicef’. In Finland, the help is
concentrated on sick, disabled or lonely children.
Category for elderly people appeared especially in situational help, meaning, affected by COVID-
19. Most of the answers were about helping seniors they don’t know and veterans. Some mentioned
helping people they know, e.g. ‘Weekly help of seven retired friend and relatives with grocery and
pharmacy shopping’. Organizations mean different societies, e.g. sports club. Also scout and
parent’s association were brought up. The category of animals included both pets and wild animals,
as well as homeless and stray dogs. Sickness could be for awareness campaign or events, and it could
also be helping out a sick colleague. The category other includes e.g. helping countries with nature
catastrophes or other of which appearance was very insignificant. Unknown category included
answer such as ‘For years I have done charity. The objects change, but there is always need for help.’
The change during time appeared in many answers, as some people have done charity for same object
for years while some change. For example, ‘I used to help people with hearing disabilities, but now
I help poor families to get food.’
Organizations via what altruistic behavior is performed
70
Figure 23. Organizations in altruistic behavior
Even though not separately asked, many answers included mentions of organizations who they help
with. Since it was mentioned in so many answers, they were collected via frequency counting to own
chart and Figure 23 above shows the ways via what cabin crew members help. These organizations
also give an idea on what type of help is given. Apuna ry was the most frequently mentioned
organization with 8 mentions. It is founded by one cabin crew member and it concentrates on helping
underprivileged families in Finnish capital area. Hence, the effect on that organization can be seen in
previous statistics as helping of families and kids are the most popular target groups of help.
Future prospects of altruistic behavior
Figure 24. Views of altruistic behavior
71
After presenting types and examples of current and previous help, some future prospects can be given
as well. Figure 24 above on the left shows if answerers would want to do more volunteer work or
charity work. The division is 35 (74%) for yes and 12 (26%) for no, which shows how most cabin
crew members would like to add their altruistic behavior. However, when asked if they find are happy
with amount of volunteer work they do – shown in the middle in the figure – also majority of
answerers find the amount they do to be good with 40 (70%) answers. On the contrary, 16 (28%) find
their contributing to be too little and 1 (2%) answerer considered to be doing too much volunteer
work. The amount of volunteer work, charity work or other type of help is not measured in this thesis,
and the participant can define themselves what they consider to be good amount. Hence, cabin crew
members would like to do more altruistic behavior, yet they are rather satisfied with the amount they
do now. These two questions were established via structured questions and the analysis style applied
was quantitative frequency counting.
However, when applying content analysis into unstructured question of if cabin crew members would
like to do some other type of volunteer work, 35 (78%) of the answerers said that yes, they would
like to do some other type of volunteer work or charity work and gave examples on what kind. 6
(13%) would maybe like to do more and 4 (9%) are happy with the current receiver of help. This is
shown on the right in the figure above. Repliers who would maybe want to do more, but find
themselves unable to do so, contemplated with e.g. ‘I would maybe like to do more. However, I still
have to work for money – hence my resources are limited’ and ‘I don’t really know, but I really don’t
have enough time’. All of the answerers who would like to do more charity or volunteer work, clarify
what type of work they would like to do. Majority, 7 out of 35, would like to help the elderly, such
as ‘I have been dreaming for a long time to start volunteering among senior people, especially lonely
senior people’. This example shows how some people have been planning on adding altruistic
behavior for a while already. Some people, on the other hand, have increased their altruistic behavior
before and comment it the following way: ‘I have been noticing that there is always a new project. I
have never planned beforehand what I start to do. I just go with opportunities and with situations.’.
The second biggest group on where crew members would like to aim their help is youth, animals,
poor people and lonely people with similar numbers of answers, followed by several receivers with
one or two mention. Example of this is friend volunteering, phone volunteering, refugees,
marginalized youth, etc. Some people would like to do more volunteer work for the same receiver.
Some people would literally want to do any kind of help, as quoted: ‘Yes, anything’. Some people
would like to do more, but hesitate, such as ‘I am interested in helping with mental health. There
72
would be like-minded support persons, which I find interesting. However, this would be much harder
for me emotionally’. One answerer says to have planned it properly already; ‘As a family we have
really considered of working as a foster family. However, this work nor my husband’s work does
really not enable it.’ Similarly, many other answers would like to do more but cannot – mostly
because of time – while some does not explain it any further.
4.4. Meaning of cabin crew work for altruistic behavior
The fourth and final analysis chapter of the finding aims to answer supportive question of ‘What kind
of meaning does work as a cabin crew member have for altruistic behavior?’ and it presents if sample
group considers either work or colleagues have affected their altruistic values and consequently
behavior. The outcomes of cabin crew work for altruistic values and altruistic behavior have been
examined in both quantitative and qualitative ways, since the counting of frequencies was existing in
each part, yet the main part was however in the context and meaning of answers rather than numbers,
which is why content analysis was applied eventually. The forthcoming figures present main
categories that raised from the data to help to draw an overall image of the effect of work. However,
the categories are created only from the positive answers (yes or having an effect) since the negative
answers (no or no effect) were very simple, throughout and often just plainly one word.
Meaning of cabin crew work to values in general
MEANING OF CABIN CREW WORK TO ALTRUISTIC VALUES
11
3
43
No effect Some effect Clear effect
73
Figure 25. Influence of cabin crew work to altruistic values
Participants were asked how they consider work as a cabin crew member have influenced their values.
Above on the left at Figure 25 the overall picture shows how work as a cabin crew member has
generally affected sample groups’ altruistic values while on the right, the main categories of how are
shown. The analysis applied was content analysis. Big majority, 43 (76%) considered that work has
affected their values. Majority of these explained that work has affected by widening their
worldview while adding knowledge of need for help. For example, ‘This work has opened my eyes’
and ‘When traveling as much as we do, it really opens your worldview’ were the most common type
of answers. The perspectives on how the worldview has opened variate, from ‘Seeing the world also
with negative glasses has given realistic scales to problems I maybe did not realize exists. For
example, the pollution in India…it really opens your eyes’. In fact, this category raised also in other
spots in the survey, when asking about volunteer work in general: ‘Once you have visited Old Delhi,
you cannot turn another cheek’. Hence, the importance of work trips is palpable to many.
Many answerers mirrored places they travel via work to how things are in Finland. For example,
‘When you travel around the world, you really realize that things are not as well as we have here in
Finland’. In fact, most the answers towards opening of world view mentioned the realization towards
how well things are in Finland and Finnish society: ‘This work has opened my world view. I have
seen so many places and realized, how so very privileged I am. There is a saying that to born in
Finland is like winning in lottery. I now realize what that means.’ as well as ‘I have learned to
appreciate what we have here in Finland. I used to take things for granted.’ and ‘When you travel
around the world, you realize how fortunate you are here’. Truly, many repliers said also in this part
to feel very fortunate and privileged: ‘I have always thought that traveling teaches you to look at
things from different perspective. Nowadays I know to appreciate and be grateful for things for
granted’.
The words of unfair and inequality came up a lot: ‘I have understood because I have seen how
unfair this world is’. The emotions these experiences affect is different, from ‘My worldview has
opened how other people really live. For example, when returning home from e.g. Cuba or India, I
actually feel quite anxious towards local people there’ to ‘I think I have become more aware how
unequal condition people are. Hence, I want to keep my feet on the ground on my leisure time’.
74
Henceforth, the emotions of how experiences caused by work trips are many. In addition to generally
being awakened by the state of world via work trips, examples of how cabin crew work has affected
their values are numerous. For example, the social nature of work in the cabin was brought up: ‘Due
to meeting a huge amount of different people, I have learned to solve problems individually and in
emphatic way. Heavy travelling opens up your impression on different destinies and lives of other
people’ and ‘I have met so unpolite, unpleasant, arrogant and selfish people. I do not want to be like
them.’. For some, the change in values caused by work is wanted to be very long-effected: ‘Work has
had a huge impact to my values. Meeting different people and cultures have widened my worldview
and change my values to more humanitarian direction. Surely, I have always liked people and
customer service, but all the interesting encounters and conversations with international colleagues
and customers have brought other people closer. Now I also want to teach this openness and equality
to my children.’
In addition, answers brought up appreciation towards everyday life, own home and balance: ‘I
appreciate my normal, everyday life. I can see things in bigger scale and set my own difficulties in
bigger proportion. Nonetheless, not all the effects were eyes-opening and could be considered
positive, such as ‘The work gives me anxiety, because it is in conflict with my values. Even though I
keep telling myself that the planes would fly even though I would not work there, it is against my
(nature-oriented) values’. However, 11 out of 57 replies (19%) said that the work has not have any
effect towards their values. Few replies also mentioned that they consider important that the values
of themselves and employer meet.
Effect of cabin crew work to volunteer or charity work
MEANING OF CABIN CREW WORK TO ALTRUISTIC BEHAVIOR
75
Figure 26. Influence of cabin crew work to altruistic behavior
Participants were also asked how they consider work as a cabin crew member have affected their
behavior. Similar to previous, above on the left at Figure 25 the overall picture presents how work
has generally impacted sample groups’ altruistic behavior and on the right the examples are
categorized via content analysis. Some answers were combined from elsewhere in the survey, since
some had answered that they find charity or volunteer work important because of cabin crew work,
such as ‘Why volunteer work is important… Well, main work of cabin crew member in airplane is
preparing for emergencies and evacuations. We do things beforehand so that we avoid the worst
possible consequences. For me, the need to do volunteer work surely comes from the same reason:
to avoid the emergencies and evacuations of human life.’ The answer continued with other examples
why volunteer work is important. Generally, work as a cabin crew has affected sample group’s
altruistic behavior since majority of 39 (69%) said that work itself has had a huge impact, while 15
(26%) said that there has been no effect, such as ‘I actually do not see how these two are connected.
I would help anyway’. Most answers concentrate on the emotions and experiences that traveling has
created, hence rather similar than in values. No new category is created here as the importance of
traveling already raised strongly in previous question. ‘I understand what is happening in the world
and I understand how small I am. I also understand that all the helping does not always have to be
big to have big impact’ Majority gave concrete examples on how work has affected their activity in
helping by adding different channels via what to help and new targets who to help, because of
work destinations and colleagues, for example ‘I have given an opportunity to help elsewhere in the
world.’
Work time is one factor in affecting the synergy between work and volunteer work. However, it
shares opinions: ‘Shift works allows to do volunteer work’ versus ‘Shift works makes it difficult to be
in any weekly volunteer work, but board work is possible anywhere in the world via phone’.
Nonetheless, since the workload is divided very differently in different weeks, also experiences such
as ‘More free time, more possibilities to help’ and ‘Because of this work I have plenty of time to help
during daytime’, appeared. In addition, the nature of work has had an effect, since skills like
organizational and social skills, and physical nature, were mentioned: ‘This work has helped me with
my shyness and meeting different people with brave attitude’, ‘I get along with many people and I
have good physics which helps’ and ‘Solving problems comes naturally. Difficulties are not scary –
quite the opposite – into the fire I go when everyone else disappears!’
76
The work has also affected other actual, more conscious behavior, such as ‘Because of travelling my
own choices have improved. Some countries treat animal so bad and I don’t want to support this
action in my own choices, by e.g. buying clothes winter clothes in China’. However, work has also
added conscious behavior as appeared in elsewhere in the survey: ’This work has clarified how we
people really do not work enough to protect this globe. Nature and the wellbeing of earth are they
keys for people’s life and wellbeing, after all.’ The actual impact on how work and Finnair has added
volunteer or charity work are e.g. ‘When starting my charity cases, it was easy to ask donations
because behind us was an appreciated and known company’ and ‘I have attended to charity cases
that my colleagues have organized. Vice versa, colleagues have attended to my charity cases.’
Relation between work experience and volunteer experience
Figure 27. Work and volunteer experiences in frequency polygon
In Figure 27 above the orange dots present the years of experience with altruistic behavior and the
yellow line shows experience of working as a cabin crew member. As previously clarified, clear
majority of answers considered that cabin crew work has had impact on their altruistic behavior.
Therefore, a frequency polygon was made to clarify and strengthen this view, though no further
analysis is applied in the topic. However, as shown, no clear line is able to be drawn and therefore no
clear positive correlation between these two experiences can be analyzed even though previous
analysis showed the strength of work. Nonetheless, it is notable that the shortest amount of altruistic
behavior has been done by those who have been working the less years – however, they also often
lived shorter amount of time – and mostly the amount of altruistic behavior is growing a little while
the work experience is growing. Otherwise it is not easy to draw an apparent linear line between those
two. The figure provides only 40 answers since 17 had left either one of the years empty.
0
10
20
30
40
50
YEARS OF WORKING AND HELPING
Years of working as a cabin crew member
Years of knowingly behaving altruistically
77
Altruistic behavior and its influence among colleagues
Figure 28. Colleagues and their influence in altruistic behavior
In addition to work’s influence on values and behavior, the sample group was also asked if they
consider colleagues active, and if colleagues have influenced their own volunteer work. Figure 28
above on the left shows how majority of 40 (70%) find their colleagues active in charity or volunteer
work, 1 (2%) disagreed and 16 (28%) considered that some are, yet some are not. On the right, there
are division then when asked if colleagues have had any influence on replier’s own volunteer or
charity work, with 48 (84%) to have affected and 9 (16%) to not have affected. The analysis is done
via content analysis, yet no further categories are generated but instead most important ones are
explained throughout.
Firstly, the views on if colleagues are seen active are presented. The tune in many answers emerged
inspired and excited towards colleagues and their activity, such as ‘They are involved in many things
and use their free time well’ and ‘Very active! Seems like there is always an ongoing common
project!’. Some reasons why they consider the helping activity to be so strong were given, such as
active lifestyle; ‘Flying personnel is moving fast, and they get down to business instead of just
thinking of doing. I have examples of colleagues’ volunteer work from a long-time span’. Popular
opinion was also enthusiasm and collectivity; ‘Colleagues are active and easy to get involved with.
When someone figures out a target, it takes just a minute and the whole group is helping’, ‘They are
1
16
40
HIGH HELPING ACTIVITY
OF COLLEAGUES
No Partly Yes
9
48
INFLUENCE OF COLLEAGUES
TO OWN HELPING
Have not affected Have affected
78
so active. It is an amazing work community, that always helps those in need’ and ‘Very active! They
are easy to tag along to do good’. Also, emphatic was brought up such as in ‘In community of
emphatic people, everyone looks and worries of other people’s worry. Hence, there is many kinds of
activity and lots of it’. Also, here the effect of work time and nature of work was brought up once
again: ‘I think we help more than so called regular work community, because our work time allows
it. We are also very energetic and helpful people.’. Some individual other reasons were also given,
such as ‘Very active. Involved in many things. I think it has something to do with how much flying
work and army work have in common: so much patriotism and long history so it is easy to get involved
with. Traditional values, such as fortunate help weaker etc.’.
In addition, many considered colleagues to be very active but not making any number out of it; ‘Many
of us do charity work and volunteer work, but we just don’t make a number out of it’. The effect of
COVID-19 was also brought up numerous of times, such as ‘So active! E.g. they study nursing now
when there is no work because of COVID-19’ and ‘They help so much also in other times, not just
during COVID-19’. Also, the lasting of helping was brought up. The common opinion seemed to be
that many people help once or twice or every now and then and it is actually a smaller group of people
who commit to helping work in persevering ways.
Popular attitude was proudness of active colleagues and many examples of active colleagues and
examples of their work was given. The common tone was excitement and happy when talking about
colleagues and their charity work. Such as ‘It is amazing to see how eager colleagues are to help and
join in projects!’ and ‘The common knowledge of “our people” attending in so many volunteer works
motivate me but also other. I am so, so proud when I see and hear examples of colleagues volunteer
work!’ However, while some repliers praised work community and active helping, minority worried
about some other colleagues and their behavior; ‘I am afraid that more people than we know of
support animal cruelness and child labor without realizing it’ or ‘Most people help! However, I know
colleagues who squint poor or marginalized people in Finland and abroad’.
Since the general atmosphere among replies has been, however, very encouraging and popular among
colleagues, many people felt the colleagues have had an impact towards their own altruistic behavior.
The following examples present some data on how colleagues have influenced replier’s own altruistic
behavior. Firstly, colleagues considered many other colleagues as being an example or inspiration.
Active colleagues motivate and inspire other colleagues: ‘Of course I get inspiration to actually get
down to business when I see other people doing so too’, ‘They show me examples on how or what to
79
help’ and ‘Colleagues are a support as well as inspiration.‘ Likewise, colleagues might inspire also
by how they perform their work duties; ‘Fine acts of work by colleague inspire me. To go the extra
mile to help others…’ and examples of helping during layovers inspire too. However, most the
inspiring is outside work, like ‘Colleagues broad outside-of-work know-how and actual action inspire
me’. In addition to concrete example, also stories colleagues tell have inspired other colleagues.
‘Colleagues inspire and enthuse me. It is easier to join an organization that is founded by the person
you know’. This leads to even bigger affect than example or inspiration was being an introducer or
enabler to new possibilities or ways to help – which was also categorized in effect of cabin crew
work: ‘I have gotten into voluntary work via my colleagues.’ and ‘Via this work and colleagues, new
targets have been found’. Hence, as already appeared in other questions, many repliers volunteer in
charity organization founded by colleague and also take part to other campaigns or fund-raising
colleagues have organized: ‘We have wonderful colleagues who organize all kinds of charity or
volunteer events – it is easy to join those. When I have been an organizer to those, I must say, it is
amazing how eager people are to help!’, ‘Knowing that colleagues are eager and willing to help,
makes starting different projects easier’ and ‘They always join the helping work, by offering both
their money and their time’.
In addition to these, colleagues have also informed and educated: ‘They have given ideas to help.
They have also awakened me to notice, that there is so many different ways to help fellow humans.’
And in fact, third category is the affection of colleagues by spreading the knowledge: ‘I have been
getting hints on who need help or support… Together we have then donated to different needs’ and
‘Colleagues have been giving me lots of good hints! They also motivate me to do good’ are examples
of typical answers which created this category. All in all, the effect of colleagues is major to many
other colleagues. ‘Without my colleagues, I would not have been introduced to this organization and
I would not be helping in food donation’. Yet still, some consider that the urge to help comes from
person itself alone instead of colleagues. To conclude, however; ‘Among us it is normal to do
volunteer work or charity work. No one wonders.’
80
5. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION
5.1. Discussion of the findings
The purpose of the study was to answer the research question of ‘Why do cabin crew members behave
in an altruistic way?’. To answer that, different aspects, possible reasons and influencing factors
needed to be found. Hence, the four supportive research questions were conducted, and they will lead
in this discussion of most important findings. However, before discussing them further, it is worthful
to notice that there are no researches to mirror or compare this study directly with since cabin crew
and their altruistic values and behavior have not been studied earlier. Thus, the discussion can only
be reflected towards theory about altruism, values or actual behavior in general. Although this has
been theoretical framework of the thesis, it lacks on taking the specialities of cabin crew work into
consideration, such as skillful managing and examinating of emotions (Bolton & Boyd, 2003, p. 289).
Charasteristics of altruistic cabin crew members
First supportive question asked about characteristics of the sample group; those cabin crew members
who behave altruistically. Though rather small sampling with 57 usable answers, fairly
comprehensively divided data was conducted since e.g. age, years of volunteer or cabin crew
experience variate a lot. Earlier studies about cabin crew members, e.g. regarding health, have clear
majority of women repliers such as in studies of Linnersjö et al. (2003) and 79% and Pukkala et al.
(2012) with 85% of. As most cabin crew members at Finnair are female, it was quite expected that
majority of repliers (91%) in this study were women. However, since there are no studies on how
altruistic work in the cabin is and only few of the answers referred to it, it is difficult to see if studies
of Thoman et al. (2014) about female choosing their work with altruistic motivations, or Austin
(1979) discovering female to notice and give help more than men, occur in this study.
Nonetheless, the concentration of the study is in the values based on Schwartz’s Value Survey. The
altruistic values of benevolence and universalism (Romani et al., 2012, p. 196) raised as the highest
among sample group. This was partly expected, since they have earlier been the most important
among Finnish sample group with 95% women respondents women (Schwartz, Verkasalo,
Antonovsky, & Sagiv, 1997, p. 12). While benevolence and universalism appraised the importance
of family, friends and equality, the most important individual factor was health, raising the value of
security to nearly as important among sample group’s life in general. However, cabin crew work is
81
often seen as a risk for health, since e.g. the working conditions expose to cosmic radiation (Linnersjö,
Hammar, Dammström, Johansson, & Eliasch, 2004, p. 814), shift work creates jet lag (Pukkala, et
al., 2012, p. 2896) and disturbs circadian rhythm. All those could increase health risks, e.g. expose to
breast cancer (Megdal;Kroenke;Laden;Pukkala;& Schernhammer, 2005, s. 2030). On the contrary,
doing volunteer work has been linked to health benefits (Borgonovi, 2008, p. 2331). The next most
important value of self-direction was clearly rated less meaningful, even though the study of Dahlberg
(2016) figured cabin crew’s professional commitment to be a cause of self-interest.
Different factors influencing altruistic behavior
Second supportive question aimed to discover different factors influencing altruistic behavior and
how important they are. Values basing on Schwartz’s Value Survey were searched also in this section
yet from perspective of their important in altruistic behavior. Expectedly, benevolence and
universalism were the most significant values. Benevolence was rated more important, but
importance of universalism decreased majorly since questions regarding helping of communities and
animals were ranked less important. Therefore, the reinforcement of altruistic cabin crew members
to generally care greatly about all people raised, followed by interest towards nature.
The study also aimed to search if some sociodemographic factors influenced altruistic behavior, hence
benevolence and universalism were measured among different groups. One group was age, yet since
this study showed the altruistic values to be stronger in younger generation, the studies of e.g. Krebs
(1982), Piliavin & Charng (1990) and Pantal et al. (2019) turned out the opposite. Another group was
work experience and position at work, since e.g. Stern et al. (1995) considered position in social
structure to have an effect for values and attitudes. From this study, only remarkable founding was
that those flying 20-39 years appreciate benevolence expectational amount and superiors ranked value
of universalism remarkably lower than workers. Volunteer work experience did also have an effect;
the longer the person has done volunteer work, the more important the value of benevolence is.
However, other values also played an important part in altruistic behavior. Quantitative study
revealed the importance of tradition, hedonism and self-direction quite close to universalism and
benevolence, while qualitative analysis brought up how all values effect and provide reasons for
altruistic behavior. The importance of hedonism and self-direction was also. This indicates that while
altruistic values are benevolence and universalism, other values play an important part in altruism.
Hence, measuring altruistic values or behavior based on Schwartz’s theory alone is not enough.
82
Therefore, from many different approaches to altruism, many could be found in study. Egocentric
approach clearly takes place among sample group, since hedonic side of helping to give so much joy
and good feeling (e.g. Haski-Leventhal, 2009; Batson, 2017), and helping to always benefit the helper
(e.g. Mill, 1861; Knox, 1990; Batson, 2017) are strongly present. However, also pure altruism was
found, making Monroe’s (1996) study of some people simply to be more altruistic than others
understandable, though pure altruism is otherwise a disputed term in altruism studies. Other
approaches to altruism were presented as well, e.g. sociological and cultural (e.g. Kochanska &
Aksan, 2004), since many repliers said helping to happen because they have grown into it, and alter-
centric approach, since other people affect positively to helping (Darley & Latane, 1968). Moreover,
empathic approach was carried strong and one response even described whole community of cabin
crew emphatic. While empathy’s importance in altruism is debatable in different researches (e.g.
Batson, 2017; Hoffman, 1975), in this study empathy in altruism is strong.
In addition, helping happens because many repliers feel privileged with e.g. health, having a job and
regular income and living in Finland. Appreciation towards Finland was commonly mentioned
throughout the survey for both as a reason for values and reason for behaving. Other important factors
that influence altruistic behavior are e.g. upbringing (e.g. Verplanken & Holland, 2002, p. 444) and
especially the strong example from mother to daughter (Hoffman, 1975, pp. 937, 942) applies in this
sample group, yet the fact that majority of repliers are women likely affects. Furthermore,
acknowledging the need of help was also important, as well as situational reasons (Piliaving &
Charng, 1990), such as current COVID-19 pandemic. Situation factors were clearly the most
important reason for beginning any type of actual behavior, yet after starting, it is not crucial. Second
important factor for starting to help was influence of family or friends, therefore earlier studies (e.g.
Simon, 1992; Bartlett, 1987; Oliner & Oliner, 1988; Haski-Leventhal, 2009; Darley & Latane; 2009)
matter here. However, reasons to start are rather different than reasons to continue with helping and
the motivations to help truly are affected by different factors, such as all values (Schwartz, 2012, p.2).
Different types of altruistic behavior
Third supportive question concluded the altruistic behavior of cabin crew members. This study meets
the presented theory where Dietz et al. (2005) reviewed reason behind altruistic behavior to be a
combination of several objects, values being one of them. Study of Verplanken & Holland (2002) is
also agreed since also situation needs to be important in actual behavior. These together create
83
altruistic behavior in this study, which is happening via several different forms (Theurer & Wister,
2009, p. 160). While there is no review to bind volunteer act and altruistic act (Haski-Leventhal,
2009, p. 271), it was very strong among the sample group in addition to charity although altruistic
behaviour was referred as helping to make answering clear and to ease the reading.
Helping can be material or moral (e.g. Argan & Argan, 2017, pp. 864-865), from which material
helping appeared the strongest in this study. Especially donating money or goods to charities was
popular, followed by e.g. recycling (Hopper & Nielsen, 1991, p. 215) and sharing of own (Bryan &
London, 1970, p. 206), which indicates the strength in Schwartz’s value of universalism as
environmentally friendly behavior (Corral-Verdugo, et al., 2009, p. 34) even though only one answer
brought up the importance of nature when asked about altruistic behavior. Though money donations
do not create as much happiness or increase in health as e.g. volunteering (Borgonovi, 2008, p. 2331),
it was the most popular way – likely since it is easy, which was one of the reasons why many help.
Donations could be performed anywhere yet majority of help is aimed to Finland, though it was
commonly stated that work has opened up worldview and added appreciation towards good living
conditions in Finland comparing to elsewhere. Consequently, connection between place of help and
target of help can be withdrawn. Generally, cabin crew members want to help people in Finland.
Targets of help were however numerous, yet different types of families proved to be the most popular
object, followed by children, unknown and elderly. These targets fit into Schwartz’s value theory, yet
once again they rather prove the importance of universalism rather than benevolence, which was
proved stronger in reason behind altruistic behavior.
Most repliers were happy with the amount of help, yet most would also like to help more and via
different ways. However, based on percentages among survey replies, it is likely that the amount is
actually not added but only an intension. Henceforth, the actual behavior might differ from intention,
which shows that the theory of Terlau & Hirsch (2015) of values turning to intention and only then
actual behavior might happen would actually require similar study applied in either long time period
or later, since it is likely that people pondering on adding volunteer work probably will not.
Importance of cabin crew work and colleagues to altruistic behavior
Fourth supportive question asked if cabin crew work has been influencing altruistic behavior and
based on unstructured question of asking it directly, it has had a clear meaning while structured
questions rated its importance quite average among other reasons in altruistic behavior. However,
84
these two together implicate that generally, work effects altruistic behavior of cabin crew members
since it influences values rather strongly. Likewise, the support and inspiration from and towards
colleagues have been studied important in important in work engagement (Zanthopoulou et al., 2008,
p. 345) and this study shows that it also reaches outside work. Majority in sample group felt that
either colleagues have introduced new targets or helping channels, or they have helped with helping.
As an example, one of the most popular organization via what to help is founded by colleague. The
support was also shown in the comments towards the colleague author, since very many repliers
wished the author good luck in very interesting topic in an enthusiastic manner. Therefore, Simon’s
(1992) study of altruistic values to be impacted by other individuals or identified group meet this
research since sample group considered commonly colleagues being encouraging and influencing. In
addition, existence of either former or current connection might guide people to help, like Oliner &
Oliner (1988) considered (Haski-Leventhal, 2009, p. 279). It has also been studied that the
encouragement of colleague to do volunteer work is strong (ThinkAdvisor, 2015, p. 1), which too
applies here.
Situational intelligence, emotion and deep acting (Heuven & Bakker, 2003, pp.82-84) are expected
to be strong among cabin crew members, and though exactly this type of findings did not appear from
data, the effect of work towards individuals’ social and problem-solving skills and more emphatic
way of behaving could clearly be found as in surplus produce, which might indicate them. Likewise,
study of Bolton & Boyd (2003, 289) about cabin crew members having skilful emotion managing
and examination can be considered also in this study.
Conclusion of discussion
In the early days of helping behavior research in 1960s, answering to the question of “why people
help” was assumed to be either clearly unanswerable or already answered and therefore, it was not
popular trying to answer that type of a question (Batson, Van Lange, Ahmad, & Lishner, 2005, p.
280). Answering it also today remains quite complex. In a way, the study answers the research
question of why cabin crew members behave in an altruistic way, yet in rather versatile manner since
evidently, there is no such thing as one single altruistic motivation (Paraskevaidis & Andriotis, 2017,
p. 27). Many factors are important in their altruistic behavior, such as altruistic values among others.
Factors affecting those values are numerous, and work and colleagues are seen as major influencer.
Altruistic behavior given is performed to several different targets and via several different ways.
85
5.2. Theoretical contributions
Cabin crew behave in an altruistic way due to several different reasons, one of them being values -
especially universalism and benevolence – making Schwartz’s (2012) value dimension of self-
transcendence clearly the most important in altruistic values and behavior. However, also other values
are important and hence, while measuring altruistic values is possible via Schwartz’s Value Survey,
using it alone lacks taking into consideration the different approaches and effecting factors to altruism
and consequently, fails to provide transparent and comprehensive picture enough in altruistic values
or behavior of cabin crew.
5.3. Managerial implications
Firstly, it should be acknowledged that very sudden change of methods from interviews to surveys to
keep the anonymity created difficulties. While the survey provides greatly rich and vivid data,
analyzing the key points as reliably and densely as possible was challenging, since the data was both
slightly too big for qualitative analysis but also too small for quantitative analysis. The responses
variated majorly from each other; e.g. one answer included many sentences and very throughout
explanations, while the other included just one word. In addition, understanding if replier referred to
current or previous factor was problematic. Therefore, the concentration in study is on creating a
general image of the topic, since either comprehensive qualitative or quantitative study was not really
workable. However, the possibilities the existing data eventually offers are plenty, and even the
provided information helps to create general picture of the topic.
Therefore, the study offers majorly new information for the industry since the topic has generally not
been studied academically earlier. Many repliers wrote comments such as ‘Good luck and success
with your study. You’re doing very important work!’, which indicates that the sample group finds the
topic both important and interesting. Thus, the advice for the industry is to study their employees’
values and if they meet with company values, encourage them with altruistic behavior (Valentine et
al., 2011, p. 518). After all, earlier researches have shown positive effects for company allowing their
employees to perform altruistic actions, e.g. better reputations (Brammer & Millington, 2005, pp.
29,40) or competitive advantage (Porter & Kramer, 2006, pp. 1,9). In addition, volunteering increases
wellbeing and health (Borgonovi, 2008, p. 2331). Hence, it would be win-win situation also in tourism
industry.
86
Specific advantages for airline company to allow employees implementing altruistic behavior are also
few. For example, since the carbon footprint creates tension among different groups, to show the
activity of personnel in volunteer or charity work – existing responsible behavior – might be highly
representative for the company. Certain type of altruistic behavior is performed also during work
trips, which might be interesting add referring to the subject. In addition, since many consider all
cabin crew members altruistically active, perhaps similar to some global airlines, own company
charity organization in the future might be attractive to engage more employees into altruistic
behavior and therefore engage even more of the known benefits of altruistic behavior.
While the sample group of the study was only those people who find themselves somehow altruistic,
the answers revealed that many considered all cabin crew members altruistically active. Therefore,
the common findings can be used to acknowledge that the altruistic will and we-spirit among cabin
crew members in general might be rather strong. Since the influence of work and colleagues is
significant factor in starting and performing altruistic behavior, it creates endless amounts of
possibilities for industry. Cabin crew members’ general will to help people in Finland indicates that
despite seeing the world, personnel of blue wings wants to help people in Finland. Therefore, the
study already represented possible and popular targets for helping; especially underprivileged
families, and growing interest towards elderly. After all, knowing smart ways to help usually provides
the most efficient help (Singer, 2013) and this study can be a starting point for both company as well
as volunteer and charity organizations.
5.4. Critical evaluation of the research
Qualitative study’s trustworthiness includes evaluating study throughout the process, which was
actively done, and it includes several subjects to be complete. First subject is dependability, which
refers to a logical research process and documentation. (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2008) Sudden
change in methods created difficulties in conducting clear study, and hence variety of analysis
methods might cause confusion in keeping up with analysis. Second subject is transferability, which
means if executed study shows any connection to other research context (Eriksson & Kovalainen,
2008). The importance of benevolence and universalism in altruistic values is shown in both previous
altruistic studies and in this one, however this study also raises importance of other values. Third
subject is credibility, which questions of researcher being familiar with the topic (Eriksson &
Kovalainen, 2008). Credibility is also succeeding in giving the voice to participants, and since many
quotations were provided throughout analysis, the concentration is kept in what is found from data.
87
Since the author is a colleague to sample group, who has familiarized into subject in practice and also
in academically, the credibility is also applied in that way. However, credibility might also suffer
from author being a colleague, since an outside researcher might find different main points in such
rich and wide data. After all, credibility also measures if other research would come close to similar
findings in data. Fourth subject is conformability, which links interpretations and findings to data so
that it is easily understood. (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2008) Since the findings are quite neutral, the
study can be considered conformable. Generally, the qualitative section can be considered rather
trustworthy.
Quantitative study then needs to be evaluated with different terms, e.g. reliability to consider
consistency in instrument or measure (Heale & Twycross, 2015, p. 66) and therefore Cronbach alfa
was used in study, although it did not provide representative view of implemented questions. On
contrast however to qualitative part, quantitative part analysis would most likely produce quite similar
findings and therefore would be reliable (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2008) although there is a possibility
for human error with scales and numbers. Validity then refers to study giving accurate explanation of
what happened (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2008) and if concept in quantitative study was correctly
measured (Heale & Twycross, 2015, p. 66). The validity might suffer greatly from external factors,
such as data collection methodology or operationalizing failure (Cohen et al., 2011, p. 261), and
eventually, survey as a secondary data collection method effects. In addition, the timing of study with
COVID-19 situation most likely effects results, sine e.g. there is more time for altruistic behavior, yet
less economical resources due to layoffs, and therefore if study was implemented in another time, the
results might be different.
The combination of both quantitative and qualitative analysis is both strength and weakness in this
study. At first, combining appeared mainly as strong and enriching option (Holsti, 1969; ref. Riffe et
al., 2019) which shows that evaluation of the study was implemented from very beginning of the
study to increase the transparency of the study. For example, survey as a data collection method relies
much on the participants ability to express themselves (Tuomi & Sarajärvi, 2018), which is why both
unstructured and structured questions were provided. The differences in expressing oneself were
clearly shown in answers and that was greatly hindering the analysis. In addition, conclusions only
based on message in content are not appropriate (Neuendorf, 2002; ref. Hall, 2018), making the
existence of structured questions essential. In the end though the amount of answers was quite large
for qualitative study yet quite small to quantitative study and due to data size and type, some sort of
happy medium was tried to find. However, now the study lacks on diving deeper into the factors of
88
each value on individual’s behavior, which was however needed also to keep the anonymity of replier
since in some answers recognizing the participant could have been possible for the collegial author.
Nonetheless, the anonymity enabled to ask directly values, though in e.g. environmental studies
replies might overthink their answers and find it difficult to prioritize their values (Bouman, Steg, &
Kiers, 2018, p. 3) as they aim to answer in as socially accepted way as possible (Schwartz, 2003,
2005; ref. Bouman et al., 2018, p.3), yet in anonymous study this was considered not as such big of
a risk. Despite of the difficulties in analysis, the combination of structured and unstructured questions
eventually provided realistic and honest data. However, since the sample group cannot be expected
to present all altruistic cabin crew members, the study might lack in theoretical generalization.
Nevertheless, the findings are vast yet consistent and reproducible and dependability is achieved.
Other fact that should be taken into consideration is that saturation was not accomplished. While the
data received is very rich and informative, it might also be a bit biased and the number of repliers
remained actually very low. This is acknowledged since author is a colleague and recognizes that
several known altruistic behavior were missing in data, such as more examples of help given in
destinations (e.g. Cuba, Dominican Republic). In addition, only one replier mentioned helping of sick
colleague while really the circle of helping colleagues included many participants. Similarly, a post
where concrete help in charity participation was asked, gained 99 participants to actually help. This
might indicate for people’s willingness to act rather than only planning to act, such as ‘Flight
attendants as a group are very determined and productive group’ and ‘Solving problems comes
naturally. (Other text). Into the fire I go when everyone else disappears!’. Perhaps the academic study
did not appear as appealing as wished, despite the positive feedback of survey being user-friendly,
which was also one of the goals. However, now the question appears that if already the data is so rich,
how diverse altruistic cabin crew members are after all, if bigger sample group could be engaged for
academic research.
Evaluating case study needs to take into consideration if study is significant, relevant and compete
and that the alternative perspectives are used in examination (Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2008). This
study implements in taking needed criteria into account and henceforth can be considered a decent
case study in that way. However, good case study also requires all relevant evidence to be explored
(Eriksson & Kovalainen, 2016, p. 145), and since saturation is not quite met with this data, it partly
lacks. However, the study succeeds in answering all the research questions.
89
5.5. Suggestions for future research
Sustainable tourism is a growing (Martin-Rios & Gössling, 2020) and since altruism is a basis for
environmentally friendly behavior (Corral-Verdugo, et al., 2009, p. 34), the need remains for studying
altruism more in tourism (Filep et al. 2017, p. 26) and in tourism workforce. In addition to conducting
similar type of study to other tourism workforce, study could also be extended to whole cabin crew
personnel or other airlines in quantitative way. This way the questions if all cabin crew members are
altruistic or is there something about cabin crew work that gathers altruistic people together, could be
answered. After all, cabin crew members among other airlines are knowingly also active in altruistic
behavior. This study upraised the value of universalism, where welfare of nature belongs to, despite
of quite significant carbon footprint due to work. Since Schwartz’s values are ought to be universal,
similar study in quantitative way could be consolidated in sustainable tourism research to draw an
overall view of cabin crew’s altruistic values and behavior globally.
Question also appeared if there is difference in values between those people who travel via work and
those who don’t. Thus, the study could be applied to whole company of Finnair, or other company
including traveling via work, to see the difference as after all, work and traveling were mentioned as
important factors for altruistic behavior. In comparison, this type of study could be implemented via
management type of viewpoint, e.g. how to lead the employee group with strong altruistic values.
This could have also been optional approach to this study.
At the time of the thesis writing, COVID-19 is highly effective in tourism and aviation, as well as in
other industries and in individual’s life. While pandemic has been difficult, it has also brought up
increasing interest to helping others and other humanitarian acts. Hence, similar type of researches in
the future might be very topical for other sample groups too. Alternatively, similar type of study could
be implemented later to same sample group to see if the pandemic time had effect in altruistic
behavior as expected. After all, the comments to this thesis were very encouraging and enthusiastic
– and numerous – such as ‘Fine survey and topic for thesis! The topic also concretizes very well
during these hard times of COVID-19’ and ‘Thank you for this survey – it really got me thinking for
a while’. Hence, the topic is important and current for this survey group and perhaps it would also be
for other tourism workforce, or even interdisciplinary.
90
REFERENCES
Air Canada. (2020, March 26). Air Canada and Air Canada Foundation Work with Second Harvest
to Redistribute Onboard Fresh Food Items to Canadians in Need. Retrieved May 3, 2020,
from Air Canada: https://www.paddleyourownkanoo.com/2020/03/27/air-canada-donates-
more-than-2330kg-of-fresh-food-to-charity-after-switching-to-packaged-snacks/
Air Canada Foundation. (2020). Our mission. Retrieved May 3, 2020, from Air Canada Foundation:
https://www.aircanada.com/en/about/community/foundation/index.html
Air New Zealand. (2020). In the community. Retrieved May 3, 2020, from Air New Zealand:
https://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/sponsorship
Akyildiz, I. F., & Bolch, G. (1988). Mean Value Analysis Approximation for Multiple Server
Queuing Networks. Performance Evaluation, 8(2), pp. 77-91. doi: 10.1016/0166-
5316(88)90015-6.
Allen, N. J., & Rushton, J. P. (1983). Personality Characteristics of Community Mental Health
Volunteers: A Review. Journal of Voluntary Action Research, 12(1), pp. 36-49. doi:
10.1177/089976408301200106.
Amadeus. (2015). Future traveller tribes 2030 - Understanding tomorrow's traveller. London: Future
Foundation.
American Airlines. (2020). Let good take flight. Retrieved May 3, 2020, from American Airlines:
https://www.aa.com/i18n/customer-service/about-us/let-good-take-flight/let-good-take-
flight.jsp?anchorLocation=DirectURL&title=letgoodtakeflight
Argan, M. T., & Argan, M. (2017). Do Altruistic Values of An Individual Reflect Personality Traits?
International Journal of Recent Advances in Organizational Behaviour and Decision
Sciences. 3. 2311-3197. , pp. 858-871.
Back, M. D., Schmukle, S. C., & Egloff, B. (2009). Predicting Actual Behavior From the Explicit
and Implicit Self-Concept of Personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol.
97, No. 3, pp. 533-548. doi: 10.1037/a0016229.
Balliet, D., Joireman, J., Daniels, D., & George-Falvy, J. (2008). Empathy and the Schwartz Value
System: A Test of an Integrated Hypothesis. Individual Differences Research, Vol. 6, No. 4,
pp. 269-279.
Balnaves, M., & Caputi, P. (2001). Introduction to Quantitative Research Methods: an Investigative
Approach. London: SAGE.
Barrett Values Centre. (2020). Why Values are Important. Retrieved April 14, 2020, from Barrett
Values Centre: https://www.valuescentre.com/values-are-important/
91
Bartlett, K. T. (1987). Teaching Values: A Dilemma. Journal of Legal Education, Vol. 37, No. 4, pp.
519-521. www.jstor.org/stable/42898057.
Batson, C. D. (1991). The Altruism Question: Toward a Social-Psychological Answer. New-Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Batson, C. D. (2017). Chapter 11. Empathy and Altruism. In K. Brown, & M. Leary, The Oxford
Handbook of Hypo-egoic phenomena (pp. 161-174. doi:
10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199328079.013.11). New York: Oxford University Press.
Batson, C. D., Lishner, D. A., & Stocks, E. L. (2015). 13: The Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis. In D.
A. Schroeder, & W. G. Graziano, The Oxford Handbook of Prosocial Behavior (pp. 1-40. doi:
10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195399813.013.023). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Batson, C. D., Van Lange, P. A., Ahmad, N., & Lishner, D. A. (2005). Altruism and Helping
Behavior. In M. A. Hogg, & J. Cooper, The Sage Handbook of Social Psychology (pp. 279-
295). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Baum, T. (2007). Progress in Tourism Management- Human resources in tourism: Still waiting for
change. Tourism Management 28, pp. 1383-1399. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2007.04.005.
Baum, T., Kralj, A., Robinson, R. N., & Solnet, D. J. (2016). Tourism workforce research: A review,
taxonomy and agenda. Annals of Tourism Research 60, pp. 1-22. doi:
10.1016/j.annals.2016.04.003.
Beacon Foundation. (2020). About Us. Retrieved May 3, 2020, from Beacon Foundation:
https://www.beaconfoundation.org/about
Bekele, K. (2016, February 27). Ethiopian Airlines establishes Foundation. Retrieved May 3, 2020,
from The Reporter: https://www.thereporterethiopia.com/content/ethiopian-airlines-
establishes-foundation
Bennett, S. A. (2006). A Sociology of Commercial Flight Crew. London: Routledge.
Boenigk, S., Leipnitz, S., & Scherhag, C. (2011). Altruistic values, satisfaction and loyalty among
first-time blood donors. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing,
16, pp. 356-370. doi: 10.1002/nvsm.433.
Bolton, S. C., & Boyd, C. (2003). Trolley dolly or skilled emotion manager? moving on from
Hochschild's Managed Heart. Work, Employment & Society, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 289-308. doi:
10.1177/0950017003017002004.
Borgonovi, F. (2008). Doing well by doing good. The relationship between formal volunteering and
self-reported health and happiness. Social Science & Medicine, 66, pp. 2321-2334. doi:
10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.01.011.
92
Bouman, T., Steg, L., & Kiers, H. A. (2018). Measuring Values in Environmental Research: A Test
of an Environmental Portrait Value Questionnaire. Frontiers in Psychology, Volume 9, Article
564, pp. 1-19. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00564.
Boundless Statistics. (2020). Frequency Distributions for Quantitative Data. Retrieved May 31,
2020, from Boundless Statistics: https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-
statistics/chapter/frequency-distributions-for-quantitative-data/
Brammer, S., & Millington, A. (2005). Corporate Reputation and Philanthropy: An Empirical
Analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 61, pp. 29-44. doi: 10.1007/s10551-005-7443-4.
Brannen, J., & O'Connell, R. (2016). Data Analysis I: Overview of Data Analysis Strategies. In S. N.
Hesse-Biber, & R. B. Johnson, The Oxford Handbook of Multimethod and Mixed Methods
Research Inquiry (pp. 1-32. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199933624.013.18). New York:
Oxford University Press.
Britannica, T. E. (2020). Altruism | ethics | Britannica. Retrieved March 19, 2020, from Encyclopedia
Britannica | Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/topic/altruism-ethics
British Airways. (2020). Charity and community investment. Retrieved May 3, 2020, from British
Airways: https://www.britishairways.com/en-gb/information/about-ba/community-
investment
Brussel Airlines. (2020). b.foundation. Retrieved May 3, 2020, from Brussel Airlines:
https://www.brusselsairlines.com/en-bi/corporate/corporate-social-
responsibility/bfoundation.aspx
Bryan, J. H., & London, P. (1970). Altruistic Behavior by Children. Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 73,
No. 3, pp. 200-211. doi: 10.1037/h0028744.
Cambridge Dictionary a. (2020). Meaning of values in English. Retrieved April 14, 2020, from
Cambridge Dictionary | English Dictionary, Translations & Thesaurus:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/values
Cambridge Dictionary b. (2020). Meaning of altruism in English. Retrieved March 18, 2020, from
Cambridge Dictionary | English Dictionary, Translations & Thesaurus:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/altruism
Cambridge Dictionary c. (2020). Meaning of empathy in English. Retrieved April 15, 2020, from
Cambridge Dictionary | English Dictionary, Translations & Thesaurus:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/empathy
Cambridge Dictionary d. (2020). Meaning of volunteerism in English . Retrieved April 15, 2020,
from Cambridge Dictionary | English Dictionary, Translations & Thesaurus:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/volunteerism
93
Cambridge Dictionary e. (2020). Meaning of charity in English. Retrieved April 15, 2020, from
Cambridge Dictionary | English Dictionary, Translations & Thesaurus:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/charity
Cambridge Dictionary f. (2020). Meaning of motivation in English. Retrieved April 15, 2020, from
Cambridge Dictionary | English Dictionary, Translations & Thesaurus:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/motivation
Chambers, E. (1997). Tourism as a Subject of Higher Education: Educating Thailand's Tourism
Workforce. In E. Chambers, Tourism and Culture. An Applied Perspective. (pp. 183-198).
Albany: State University of New York Press.
China Airlines. (2019). Charity Activity. Retrieved May 3, 2020, from China Airlines:
https://calec.china-airlines.com/csr/en/social_charity.html
Coghlan, A., & Fennell, D. (2009). Myth or Substance: An examination of altruism as the basis of
volunteer tourism. Annals of Leisure Research, pp. 377-402. doi:
10.1080/11745398.2009.9686830.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research Methods in Education. Abingdon:
Routledge.
Corey, S. M. (1937). Professed attitudes and actual behavior. Journal of Educational Psychology,
28(4, pp. 271-280. doi: 10.1037/h0056871.
Corral-Verdugo, V., Bonnes, M., Tapia-Fonllem, C., Fraijo-Sing, B., Frias-Armenta, M., & Carrus,
G. (2009). Correlates of pro-sustainability orientation: The affinity towards diversity. Journal
of Environmental PSychology, pp. 34-43. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.09.001.
Crotti, R., & Misrahi, T. (2017). The Travel & Tourism Competitiveness Report 2017. Geneva: World
Economic Forum.
Crowe, S., Cresswell, K., Robertson, A., Huby, G., Avery, A., & Sheikh, A. (2011). The case study
approach. BMC medical research methodology, 11, 100, pp. 1-33. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-
11-100. Retrieved May 31, 2020, from Universal Class:
https://www.universalclass.com/articles/business/case-studies-types.htm
Cuff, B. M., Brown, S. J., Taylor, L., & Howat, D. J. (2014). Empathy: A Review of the Concept.
Emotion Review, 8(2), pp. 144-153. doi: 10.1177/1754073914558466.
Curley, C., & Royle, T. (2013). The degradation of work and the end of the skilled emotion worker
at Aer Lingus: is it all trolley dollies now? Work, employment and society, 27(1), pp. 105-121.
doi: 10.1177/0950017012460317.
Dahlberg, A. (2016). Air Rage Post-9/11. In R. Bor, Passenger Behaviour. Abingdon: Routledge.
94
Davis, M. H. (2018). 1 History and Definitions. In M. H. Davis, Empathy: a social psychological
approach (pp. - doi: 10.4324/9780429493898). New York: Routledge.
Delta Clipped Wings. (2020). Our History - Timeline. Retrieved May 3, 2020, from Clipped Wings -
Delta Air Lines: https://www.deltaclippedwings.org/timeline
Dietz, T., Fitzgerald, A., & Shwom, R. (2005). Environmental Values. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour.
30., pp. 335-372. doi: 10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144444.
Dolnicar, S. (2013). Asking Good Survey Questions. Journal of Travel Research, pp. 551-574. doi:
10.1177/0047287513479842.
Dolnicar, S. (2015). In future, I would love to see . . . a reflection on the state of quantitative tourism
research. Tourism Review, Vol. 70, No. 4, pp. 259-263. doi: 10.1108/TR-02-2015-0005.
Dossey, L. (2018). The Helper's High. Explore, Vol. 14, No. 6, pp. 393-399. doi:
10.1016/j.explore.2018.10.003.
Duffy, M., & Chenail, R. J. (2009). Values in Qualitative and Quantitative Research. Counseling and
Values, Volume 53, pp. 22-38. doi: 10.1002/j.2161-007X.2009.tb00111.x.
Dugatkin, L. A. (2006). The Altuism Equation. Seven Scientists Search for the Origins of Goodness.
Princeton University Press: Princeton.
Earl, P. E. (2017). 1 The evolution of behavioural economics. In R. Frantz, S.-H. Chen, K. Dopfer,
F. Heukelom, & S. Mousavi, Routledge Handbook of Behavioral Economics (pp. 5-17).
Abingdon: Routledge.
Eisenberg, N., & Strayer, J. (1987). Empathy and its development. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Elliott, R., Watson, J. C., Bohart, A. C., & Greenberg, L. S. (2011). Empathy. Psychotherapy, 48(1),
pp. 43-49. doi: 10.1037/a0022187.
Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2007). The qualitative content analysis process. Research Methodology, pp.
107-115.
Elster, J. (2006). Chapter 3 Altruistic Behavior and Altruistic Motivations. In S.-C. Kolm, & J. M.
Ythier, Handbook of the Economics of Giving, Altruism and Reciprocity, Volume 1 (pp. 184-
206. doi: 10.1016/S1574-0714(06)01003-7). North Holland: Elsevier.
Eriksson, P., & Kovalainen, A. (2008). Qualitative Research Evaluation. London: SAGE
Publications Ltd.
Eriksson, P., & Kovalainen, A. (2016). Qualitative Methods in Business Research 2nd edition.
London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Eskola, J., & Suoranta, J. (1998). Johdatus laadulliseen tutkimukseen. Tampere: Vastapaino.
95
Filep, S., Macnaughton, J., & Glover, T. (2017). Tourism and gratitude: Valuing acts of kindness.
Annals of Tourism Research 66, pp. 26-36. doi: 10.1016/j.annals.2017.05.015.
Finnair a. (2020). Our Destination. Retrieved April 6, 2020, from Finnair:
https://www.finnair.com/int/gb/destinations?_ga=2.175086433.277621768.1586173353-
1699581814.1586173353
Finnair b. (2020). Blue Wings - Finnairin maailma - Lentävä läksytuki auttaa lapsia koulutehtävissä
koronaepidemian aikana. Retrieved April 6, 2020, from Blue Wings:
https://www.finnair.com/fi-fi/bluewings/finnairin-maailma/lentävä-läksytuki-auttaa-lapsia-
koulutehtävissä-koronaepidemian-aikana-2104968
Finnair Company a. (2020). The History of Finnair. Retrieved April, 6 2020, from Finnair Company:
https://company.finnair.com/en/about/history
Finnair Company b. (2020). World-class customer experience by Finnair’s cabin crew. Retrieved
April 7, 2020, from Finnair Company: https://company.finnair.com/fi/toihin-finnairille/cabin-
crew
Finnair Company c. (2020). Material Management. Retrieved 2020, from Finnair Company:
https://company.finnair.com/en/sustainability/material-management
Finnair Company d. (2020). Finnair values. Retrieved April 6, 2020, from Finnair Company:
https://company.finnair.com/en/about/code-of-conduct
Finnair Company e. (2019). Code of Conduct. Retrieved April 6, 2020, from Finnair Company:
https://company.finnair.com/resource/blob/1513508/a6f375a42563a387ac644019860b2577/
code-of-conduct-07-2019-data.pdf
Finnair Shop. (2020). Charity. Retrieved April, 6 2020, from Finnair Shop:
https://www.finnairshop.com/en/finnair-plus-awards-and-products/charity
FinnairSuomi. (2020, May 1). Finnair on mukana auttamassa Apuna Ry:n vähävaraisten perheiden
ruoka-avussa. Finnairin tekniikka tarjosi autot ja bensat ruoka-avun käyttöön ja Finnair
Kitchenistä puolestaan tarjottiin tälle jakelukierrokselle ruokaa ja herkkuja. Retrieved May
2, 2020, from [Twitter post]:
https://twitter.com/FinnairSuomi/status/1256196689196711936?s=20
Fischer, R., Vauclair, C.-M., Fontaine, J. R., & Schwartz, S. H. (2010). Are Individual-Level and
Country-Level Value Structures Different? Testing Hofstede's Legacy With the Schwartz
Value Survey. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 41(2), pp. 135-151. doi:
10.1177/0022022109354377.
Fowler, W. F. (1935). Values. Lynbrook: New York.
96
Gellel, A.-M., & Buchanan, M. T. (2011). The impact of cultural religious values upon pre-service
teachers’ perceptions of their role as educators in Catholic religious schools. Journal of Beliefs
& Values, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp. 317-328. doi: 10.1080/13617672.2011.627688.
Giménez, A. C., & Tamajón, L. G. (2019). Analysis of the third-order structuring of Shalom
Schwartz’s theory of basic human values. Heliyon, 5, p. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e01797.
Gliem, J. A., & Gliem, R. R. (2003). Calculating, Interpreting, And Reporting Cronbach's Alpha
Reliability Coefficient For Likert-Type Scales. Midwest Research-to-Practice Conference
(pp. 82-88). Adult, Continuing, and Community Educating.
Grandy, G. (2012). Intrinsic Case Study. In A. J. Mills, G. Durepos, & E. Wiebe, Encyclopedia of
Case Study Research (pp. 500-501). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Gray, N. J., & Campbell, L. M. (2007). A Decommodified Experience? Exploring Aesthetic,
Economic and Ethical Values for Volunteer Ecotourism in Costa Rica. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism, 15:5, pp. 463-482. doi: 10.2167/jost725.0.
Grbich, C. (2013). Content analysis of texts. In C. Grbich, Qualitative Data Analysis: An
Introduction. London: SAGE Publications Inc.
Hall, M. (2018). 33 Quantitative and qualitative content analysis. In R. Nunkoo, Handbook of
Research Methods for Tourism and Hospitality Management (pp. 395-406). Cheltenham:
Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
Harling, K. (2012). An Overview of Case Study. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2141476.
Harper, M., & Allen, S. (1997). Volunteer to enhance your career and the profession. Journal of
Accountancy; New York Vol. 183, Iss. 2, pp. 41-44.
Hartmann, P., Eisend, M., Apaolaza, V., & D'Souza, C. (2017). Warm glow vs. altruistic values: How
important is intrinsic emotional reward in proenvironmental behavior? Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 52, pp. 43-55. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.05.006.
Haski-Leventhal, D. (2009). Altruism and Volunteerism: The perceptions of altruism in four
disciplines and their impact on the study of volunteerism. Journal for the Theory of Social
Behaviour 39:3, pp. 271-299. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-5914.2009.00405.x.
Heale, R., & Twycross, A. (2015). Validity and realibility in quantitative studies. Evidence Based
Nursing, Volume 18, Number 3, pp. 66-67. doi: 10.1136/eb-2015-102129.
Heckhausen, J., & Heckhausen, H. (2008). 1 Motivation and Action: Introduction and Overview. In
J. Heckhausen, & H. Heckhausen, Motivation and Action (pp. 1-9). Munich: Cambridge
University Press.
Helliwell, J. F., Layard, R., Sachs, J. D., & De Neve, J.-E. (2020). World Happiness Report 2020.
Sustainable Development Solutions Network.
97
Heuven, E., & Bakker, A. A. (2003). Emotional dissonance and burnout among cabin attendants.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 12(1), pp. 81-100. doi:
10.1080/13594320344000039.
Hoffman, M. L. (1975). Altruistic Behavior and the Parent-Child Relationship. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 31(5), pp. 937-943. doi: 10.1037/h0076825.
Hoffman, M. L. (1978). Psychological and Biological Perspectives on Altruism. International
Journal of Behavioral Development 1, pp. 323-339. doi: 10.1177/016502547800100403.
Hopper, J. R., & Nielsen, J. M. (1991). Recycling as Altruistic Behavior. Environment and Behavir,
23(29), pp. 195-220. doi: 10.1177/0013916591232004.
Howell, R. A. (2013). It's not (just) "the environment, stupid!" Values, motivations, and routes to
engagement of people adopting lower-carbon lifestyles. Global Environmental Change, 23,
pp. 281-290. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.10.015.
Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis.
Qualitative Health Research 15(9), pp. 1277-1288. doi: 10.1177/1049732305276687.
Ibtissem, M. H. (2010). Application of Value Beliefs Norms Theory to the Energy Conservation
Behaviour. Journal of Sustainable Development, Vol. 3, No.2, pp. 129-139.
Ihamäki, K. (2016). How Finnair is working with UNICEF and Amadeus to ‘Leave no one behind’.
Retrieved April 6, 2020, from Amadeus: https://amadeus.com/en/insights/blog/finnair-
unicef-amadeus
Jakosuo-Jansson, H. (2018). Vapaaehtoistyö on yritysten tapa välittää omasta yhteisöstä. Retrieved
April 7, 2020, from Neste: https://www.neste.com/fi/blogi/sustainability/vapaaehtoistyo-
yritysten-tapa-valittaa-omasta-yhteisosta
Japan Airlines. (2020). CSR - Support for charitable activities. Retrieved May 3, 2020, from Japan
Airlines: https://www.jal.com/en/csr/iso/volunteer.html
Junkkari, M. (2020, April 5). Professori Stubb. Helsingin Sanomat, Sunnuntai, pp. B1-B3.
https://dynamic.hs.fi/a/2020/stubb/.
Karjalan prikaati. (2018, August 12). Rosvopaistia veteraaneille keskiviikkona 14.8. Retrieved May
3, 2020, from Maavoimat: https://maavoimat.fi/artikkeli/-/asset_publisher/rosvopaistia-
veteraaneille-keskiviikkona-14-8-
Kerr, B., Godfrey-Smith, P., & Feldman, M. W. (2004). What is altruism? TRENDS in Ecology and
Evolution Vol. 19 No.3, pp. 135-140. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2003.10.004.
Kim, M.-S., & Stepchenkova, S. (2019). Altruistic values and environmental knowledge as triggers
of pro-environmental behavior among tourists. Current Issues in Tourism, pp. 1-6. doi:
10.1080/13683500.2019.1628188.
98
Komppula, R., Honkanen, A., Rossi, S., & Kolesnikova, N. (2018). The impact of values on
sustainable behaviour - A study among Russian and Finnish university students. European
Journal of Tourism Research, pp. 116-131.
Kroesen, M. (2013). Exploring people's viewpoints on air travel and climate change: understanding
inconsistencies. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 271-290. doi:
10.1080/09669582.2012.692686.
KvantiMOTV. (2009, December 21). Summamuuttuja. Retrieved May 31 2020, from
Kvantitatiivisten menetelmien tietovaranto:
https://www.fsd.tuni.fi/menetelmaopetus/summamuuttujat/summamuuttuja.html
Lee, J. A., Soutar, G., & Louviere, J. (2008). The Best–Worst Scaling Approach: An Alternative to
Schwartz's Values Survey. Journal of Personality Assessment, Volume 90, Issue 4, pp. 335-
347. doi: 10.1080/00223890802107925.
Lentoposti. (2012, October 5). Taivas mikä työpaikka -kirja julkistettiin näyttävästi. Retrieved May
30, 2020, from Lentoposti:
http://www.lentoposti.fi/uutiset/taivas_mika_tyopaikka_kirja_julkistettiin_nayttavasti
Levenson, R. W., & Ruef, A. M. (1992). Empathy: A Physiological Substrate. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 63(2), pp. 234-246. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.63.2.234.
Lichtenberg, J. (2009). What Is Charity? Philosophy and Public Policy Quarterly, VOL. 29, NO. 3-
4, pp. 16-20.
Lindemann, M., & Verkasalo, M. (2005). Measuring Values With the Short Schwartz's Value Survey.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 85(2), pp. 170-178. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa8502_09.
Linnersjö, A., Hammar, N., Dammström, B.-G., Johansson, M., & Eliasch, H. (2004). Cancer
incidence in airline cabin crew: experience from Sweden. Occupational & Environmental
Medicine, Volume 60, Issue 11, pp. 810-814.
Magrath, A. (2014, October 2). Ryanair scraps controversial calendar featuring cabin crew wearing
bikinis in provocative poses in favour of family-friendly image. Retrieved May 3, 2020, from
DailyMail: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-2777534/Ryanair-scraps-
controversial-calendar-featuring-cabin-crew-wearing-bikinis-provocative-poses-favour-
family-friendly-image.html
Malaysia Airlines. (2020). Doing Good Is Always Rewarding. Retrieved May 3, 2020, from Malaysia
Airlines: https://www.malaysiaairlines.com/my/en/enrich/news-
promotions/ramadhan_eid_fitri_offers/ramadan__charity.html?statusFlightDate=2018-06-
22&%3Acq_csrf_token=undefined
99
Martin-Rios, C., & Gössling, S. (2020). Sustainable Tourism: The 10 Most Important Trends in 2020.
Retrieved April 14, 2020, from EHL - Ecole hôtelière de Lausanne:
https://hospitalityinsights.ehl.edu/sustainable-tourism-trends
Maxwell, J. A. (1998). Designing a Qualitative Study. In L. Bickman, & J. R. Debra, The SAGE
Handbook of Applied Social Research Methods (pp. 214-253). Thousand Oaks: SAGE
Publications, Inc.
McCarty, J. A., & Shrum, L. J. (2000). The Measurement of Personal Values in Survey Research.
Survey Research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64(3), pp. 271-298. doi: 10.1086/317989.
McNeely, E., Mordukhovich, I., Staffa, S., Tideman, S., Gale, S., & Coull, B. (2018). Cancer
prevalence among flight attendants compared to the general population. Environmental
Health 17:49, pp. 1-9. doi: 10.1186/s12940-018-0396-8.
Meade, A. W., & Craig, S. B. (2012). Identifying Careless Responses in Survey Data. Psychological
Methods, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp. 437-455. doi: 10.1037/a0028085 .
Megdal, S. P., Kroenke, C. H., Laden, F., Pukkala, E., & Schernhammer, E. S. (2005). Night work
and breast cancer risk: A systematic review and meta-analysis. European Journal of Cancer
41, pp. 2023-2032. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2005.05.010.
Mill, J. S. (2009). Utilitarianism (From a 1879 edition). The Floating Press.
Mojza, E. J., Sonnentag, S., & Bornemann, C. (2011). Volunteer work as a valuable leisure-time
activity: A day-level study on volunteer work, non-work experiences, and well-being at work.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84, pp. 123-152. doi:
10.1348/096317910X485737.
Monroe, K. R. (1996). The Heart of Altruism : Perceptions of a Common Humanity. New Jersey:
Princeton University Press.
Neste. (2020). Vuosikertomus 2019 . Helsinki: Neste.
O'Halloran, K. (2011). 1 Charity: concept, social construct and structures. In K. O'Halloran, The
Politics of Charity (pp. 11-31). Oxon: Routledge.
Okabe, N. (2017). Creating of customer loyalty by cabin crew Creating of customer loyalty by cabin
crew: A study of the relation between emotional labor and job performance. Transportation
Research Procedia 25C, pp. 149-164. doi: 10.1016/j.trpro.2017.05.387.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (2006). Linking Research Questions to Mixed Methods Data
Analysis Procedured. The Qualitative Report, Volume 11, Number 3, pp. 474-498.
Pager, D., & Quillian, L. (2005). Walking the Talk? What Employers Say Versus What They Do.
American Sociological Review, 70(3), pp. 355-380. doi: 10.1177/000312240507000301.
100
Pantal, Pantaleon, N., Chataigne, C., Bonardi, C., & Long, T. (2019). Human values priorities: effects
of self-centredness and age. Journal of Beliefs & Values, Vol. 40, No.2, pp. 172-186. doi:
10.1080/13617672.2018.1554880.
Paraskevaidis, P., & Andriotis, K. (2017). Altruism in tourism: Social Exchange Theory vs Altruistic
Surplus Phenomenon in host volunteering. Annals of Tourism Research 62, pp. 26-37. doi:
10.1016/j.annals.2016.11.002.
Parker, P. (2018). Expected behaviour and actual behaviour - is there a difference? Proceedings of
the Institution of Civil Engineers - Municipal Engineer, pp. 1-8. doi:
10.1680/jmuen.16.00055.
Pesonen, H. (2017, May 18). Tärkeä perinne kokosi veteraanit Tampereelle vielä kerran – "Sovussa
täytyy olla naapureiden kanssa". Retrieved May 3, 2020, from Aamulehti:
https://www.aamulehti.fi/a/200147553
Pfaff, D. W. (2015). Part 1: Evidence for Altruistic Brain Theory. Chapter 2. Altruistic Brain Theory
Introduced. In D. W. Pfaff, & S. Sherman, The Altruistic Brain - How We Are Naturally Good
(pp. 49-74). New York: Oxford University Press.
Pfattheicher, S., Nockur, L., Böhm, R., Sassenrath, C., & Petersen, M. B. (2020). The emotional path
to action: Empathy promotes physical distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic. pp. 1-8.
doi: 10.31234/osf.io/y2cg5.
Piliavin, J. A., & Charng, H.-W. (1990). Altruism: A Review of Recent Theory and Research. Annual
Review of Sociology, 16(1), pp. 27-65. doi: 10.1146/annurev.so.16.080190.000331.
Pomazal, R. J., & Jaccard, J. J. (1976). An Informational Approach to Altruistic Behavior. Journal of
Personality and Social PSychology, Vol. 33, No. 3, pp. 317-326. doi: 10.1037/0022-
3514.33.3.317.
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). Strategy & Society - The Link Between Competitive
Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility. Harvard Business Review, pp. 1-16.
http://sustainability.psu.edu/fieldguide/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Strategy-and-Society-
The-link-between-competitive-andvantage-and-corporate-social-responsibility.pdf.
Posner, B. Z., & Munson, J. M. (1979). The Importance of Values in Understanding Organizational
Behavior. Human Resource Management, pp. 9-14. doi: 10.1002/hrm.3930180303.
Pukkala, E., Helminen, M., Haldorsen, T., Hammar, N., Kojo, K., Linnersjö, A., . . . Auvinen, A.
(2012). Cancer indicence among Nordic airline cabin crew. International Journal of Cancer,
Volume 131, Issue 12, pp. 2886-2897. doi: 10.1002/ijc.27551.
QCCT. (2018). Who we are. Retrieved May 3, 2020, from QCCT - Creating opportunities = Changing
Lives: https://qcct.org.au/who-we-are/
101
Riffe, D., Lacy, S., Watson, B. R., & Fico, F. (2019). Using Quantitative Content Analysis in
Research. New York: Routledge.
Rokeach, M. (1979). Understanding Human Values - Individual and Societal. London: Collier
Macmillan Publishers.
Romani, S., Grappi, S., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2012). Explaining Consumer Reactions to Corporate Social
Responsibility: The Role of Gratitude and Altruistic Values. Journal of Business Ethics,
114(2), pp. 193-206. doi: 10.1007/s10551-012-1337-z.
Rundle-Thiele, S. (2009). Bridging the gap between claimed and actual behaviour. Qualitative
Market Research: An International Journal, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 295-306. doi:
10.1108/13522750910963818.
Schmitt, M., Schwartz, S. H., Steyer, R., & Schmitt, T. (1993). Measurement models for the Schwartz
Values Inventory. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 9(2), pp. 107-121.
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: Theoretical Advances and
Empirical Tests in 20 Countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology Volume 25, pp.
1-65. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60281-6.
Schwartz, S. H. (2003). Chapter 7. A proposal for measuring value orientations across nations. In
Questionnaire Package of ESS. (pp. 259-290).
Schwartz, S. H. (2012). Article 11: An Overview of the Schwartz Theory of Basic Values. Online
Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), pp. 1-20. doi: 10.9707/2307-0919.1116.
Schwartz, S. H., & Howard, J. A. (1984). 11 Internalized Values as Motivators of Altruism. In E.
Staub, D. Bar-Tal, J. Karylowski, & J. Reykowski, Development and Maintenance of
Prosocial Behavior (pp. 229-256. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4613-2645-8). New York: Plenum
Press.
Schwartz, S. H., Verkasalo, M., Antonovsky, A., & Sagiv, L. (1997). Value priorities and social
desirability: Much substance, some style. British Journal of Social Psychology, 26, pp. 3-18.
doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8309.1997.tb01115.x.
Scott, D. W. (1985). Frequency Polygons: Theory and Application. Journal of the American
Statistical Association, 80:380, pp. 348-354. doi: 10.1080/01621459.1985.10478121.
Segal, E. A. (2018). Social Empathy : The Art of Understanding Others. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Sek-yum Ngai, S., & Cheung, C.-k. (2013). Idealism, altruism, career orientation, and emotional
echaustion among social work undergraduates. Journal of Social Work Education, pp. 105-
121. doi: 10.5175/JSWE.2009.200700077.
102
Shuart, B., Spaulding, W., & Poland, J. (2007). Introduction. In B. Shuart, W. Spaulding, & J. Poland,
Modeling Complex Systems: Colume 52 of the Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (pp. ix-
xliv). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Sigmund, K., & Hauert, C. (2002). Altruism. Current Biology Vol 12 No 8, pp. R270-R272. doi:
10.1016/S0960-9822(02)00797-2.
Simon, H. (1992). Altruism and Economics. Eastern Economic Journal, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 73-83.
Singer, P. (2013). The why and how of effective altruism. TED Talk. [Video]. Retrieved from
https://www.ted.com/talks/peter_singer_the_why_and_how_of_effective_altruism/up-next.
Smith, D. (1981). Altruism, Volunteers, and Volunteerism. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly
1981 10: 21, pp. 21-36. doi: 10.1177/089976408101000105.
Smith, D. H. (2000). Part 1: Toward a Round-Earth Paradigm for the Voluntary Nonprofit Sector. In
D. H. Smith, Grassroots Associations (pp. 3-66. doi: 10.4135/9781452232805). Thousand
Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc.
Stankovska, G., Memedi, I., & Dimitrovski, D. (2020). Coronavirus COVID-19 disease, mental
health and psychosocial support. Society Register, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 33-47. doi:
10.14746/sr.2020.4.2.03.
Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., & Guagnano, G. A. (1995). The New Ecological Paradigm in Social-
Psychological Context. Environment and Behavior, Vol. 27, No. 6, pp. 723-743. doi:
10.1177/0013916595276001.
Sue, V. M., & Ritter, L. A. (2015). Planning the Online Survey. In V. M. Sue, & L. A. Ritter,
Conducting Online Surveys (pp. 14-32). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Sun, T., Horn, M., & Merritt, D. (2004). Values and lifestyles of individualists and collectivists: a
study on Chinese, Japanese, British and US consumers. Journal of Consumer Marketing,
Volume 21, Number 5, pp. 318-331. doi: 10.1108/07363760410549140.
Sussman, R. W., & Cloninger, C. R. (2011). 1. Introduction: Cooperation and Altruism. In R. W.
Sussman, & C. R. Cloninger, Origins of Altruism and Cooperation (pp. 24-45. doi:
10.1007/978-1-4419-9520-9_2). New York: Springer.
Taber, K. S. (2017). The Use of Cronbach's Alpha When Developing and Reporting Research
Instruments in Science Education. Research in Science Education, pp. 1273-1296. doi:
10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2.
Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach's alpha. International Journal of
Medical Education, 2, pp. 53-55. doi: 10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd.
Tellis, W. M. (1997). Application of a Case Study Methodology. The Qualitative Report, 3(3), pp. 1-
19.
103
Terlau, W., & Hirsch, D. (2015). Sustainable Consumption and the Attitude-Behaviour-Gap
Phenomenon - Causes and Measurements towards a Sustainable Development. International
Journal on Food System Dynamics, 6 (3), pp. 159-174. doi: 10.18461/ijfsd.v6i3.634 .
The Emirates Airline Foundation. (2019). About us. Retrieved May 3, 2020, from The Emirates
Airline Foundation: https://www.emiratesairlinefoundation.org/english/aboutus/
The Greater Good Science Center at the University of California. (2020). What is Empathy? Retrieved
April 2, 2020, from Greater Good Magazine:
https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/topic/empathy/definition
Theurer, K., & Wister, A. (2009). Altruistic behaviour and social capital as predictors of well-being
among older Canadians. Ageing and Society 30, pp. 157-181. doi:
10.1017/S0144686X09008848.
ThinkAdvisor. (2015). Millennials’ Charity Strongly Influenced by Co-Workers. Retrieved from
ThinkAdvisor: https://workplacegivingaustralia.org.au/app/uploads/2015/07/Millennials’-
Charity-Strongly-Influenced-by-Co-Workers.pdf
Thoman, D. B., Brown, E. R., Mason, A. Z., Harmsen, A. G., & Smith, J. L. (2014). The Role of
Altruistic Values in Motivating Underrepresented Minority Students for Biomedicine.
BioScience 65, pp. 183-188. doi: 10.1093/biosci/biu199.
Tucker, H. (2016). Empathy and tourism: Limits and possibilities. Annals of Tourism Research 57,
pp. 31-43. doi: 10.1016/j.annals.2015.12.001.
Tungtakanpoung, M., & Wyatt, M. (2013). Spirituality and cultural values in the reported cognitions
of female cabin attendants on Thai Airways. Journal of Air Transport Management 27, pp.
15-19. doi: 10.1016/j.jairtraman.2012.10.007.
Tuomi, J., & Sarajärvi, A. (2018). Laadullinen tutkimus ja sisällönanalyysi. Helsinki: Tammi.
Tuomivaara, T. (2005). Y125 Tieteellisen tutkimuksen perusteet. Retrieved May 31, 2020, from Y125
Tieteellisen tutkimuksen perusteet (1.5 ov):
https://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/ttuomiva/Y125luku6.pdf
Unicef. (2020). Finnair - Click for Change. Retrieved April 6, 2020, from Unicef:
https://www.unicef.fi/yritykset/kumppanimme/finnair/
UNWTO a. (2020, March 24). COVID -19: Putting People First: Impact assessment of the COVID
on international tourism. Retrieved April 13, 2020, from The World Tourism Organization
(UNWTO): https://webunwto.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/2020-03/24-
03Coronavirus.pdf
104
UNWTO b. (2019). The Future of Work and Skills Development in Tourism. Retrieved from The
World Tourism Organization (UNWTO): https://www.e-
unwto.org/doi/pdf/10.18111/9789284421213
UNWTO c. (2020). Sustainable Development. Retrieved April 15, 2020, from The World Tourism
Organization (UNWTO): https://www.unwto.org/sustainable-development
Väntönen, E. (2020, January 1). Mukavuus ennen kaikkea. Maailma 2020: The Economist &
Helsingin Sanomat, p. https://dynamic.hs.fi/a/2019/mukavuus/.
Vaismoradi, M., Turunen, H., & Bondas, T. (2013). Content analysis and thematic analysis:
Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nursing and Health Sciences, 15,
pp. 398-405. doi: 10.1111/nhs.12048.
Valentine, S., Godkin, L., Fleischman, G. M., Kidwell, R. E., & Page, K. (2011). Corporate Ethical
Values and Altruism: The Mediating Role of Career Satisfaction. Journal of Business Ethics
101, pp. 509-523. doi: 10.1007/s10551-011-0739-7.
Walle, A. H. (1997). Quantitative Versus Qualitative Tourism Research. Annals of Tourism Research,
Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 524-536. doi: 10.1016/S0160-7383(96)00055-2.
Van Deth, J. W., & Scarbrough, E. (1995). 2 The Concept of Values. In J. W. Van Deth, & E.
Scarbrough, The Impacts of Values - Beliefs in Government Volume Four (pp. 21-47). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Veripalvelu. (2020). Matkailun vaikutukset verenluovutukseen. Retrieved June 17, 2020, from
Punainen Risti - Veripalvelu: https://www.veripalvelu.fi/verenluovutus/luovuta-
verta/matkailu
Verplanken, B., & Holland, R. W. (2002). Motivated Decision Making: Effects of Activation and
Self-Centrality of Values on Choices and Behavior. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 82, No. 3, pp. 434-447. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.82.3.434.
White, H. C. (1993). 4. Values Come in Styles, Which Mate to Change. In M. Hechter, L. Nadel, &
R. E. Michod, The Origin of Values (pp. 63-92). New York: Walter de Gruyter, Inc.
Vilkka, H. (2015). Tutki ja kehitä. Jyväskylä: PS-kustannus.
YLE. (2008, October 28). Ambulanssilennon potilaat jatkohoidossa. Retrieved May 3, 2020, from
YLE Uutiset: https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-5195231
Zalta, E. N., Nodelman, U., Allen, C., & Perry, J. (2013). Biological Altruism. Retrieved March 20,
2020, from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-
biological/
Zanthopoulou, D., Baker, A. B., Heuven, E., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2008). Working in
the Sky: A Diary Study on Work Engagement Among Flight Attendants. Journal of
105
Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 345-356. doi: 10.1037/1076-
8998.13.4.345.
Zasuwa, G. (2016). Do the ends justify the means? How altruistic values moderate consumer
responses to corporate social initiatives. Journal of Business Research, 69(9), pp. 3714-3719.
doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.03.034.
1
APPENDIX 1 (1/8)
2
APPENDIX 1 (2/8)
3
APPENDIX 1 (3/8)
4
APPENDIX 1 (4/8)
5
APPENDIX 1 (5/8)
6
APPENDIX 1 (6/8)
7
APPENDIX 1 (7/8)
8
APPENDIX 1 (8/8)