ALTRUISM AS A FUNCTION OF TEMPORARY
STATES OF THE RECIPIENT
A close consideration of the effect of interpersonal attractiveness on altruism suggests that many altruistic responses result not from characteristics of benefactors or recipients alone, but rather from an interaction between the characteristics of benefactors and recipients. Recipients, for example, may be attractive to different benefactors for different reasons, and benefactors may differ in attractability. In the modeling studies, almost all recipients were dependent, and their dependency probably interacted with the modeling effects to elicit altruism. Even though characteristics of both recipients and benefactors influence altruism, they can be separated for classification due to the fact that most experiments vary one set of characteristics and hold the other constant.
Dependency of the Recipient
The essential attribute of a recipient of altruism is his perceived need for aid. In almost all of the reported studies on altruism, altruistic behavior was elicited by a dependent other. Most studies held dependency constant, or allowed it to vary randomly. Some studies, however, gave specific attention to the effect of dependency.
A set of ten studies (see Table 4) by Berkowitz and his colleagues found a consistent effect for dependency. All studies used the same basic experimental design. In the standard situation, subjects were recruited for an experiment on supervisory ability. A “worker” was required to construct paper boxes or envelopes for a “supervisor.” In the high dependency condition, the worker was told that the supervisor’s chance of winning a prize depended on the worker’s productivity. In the low dependency condition, the worker was told that it was the quality of the supervisor’s instructions that would determine his reward. The measure of altruism was either the number of boxes constructed in the experimental session, or the difference between the number constructed in the experimental session and the number in a practice session. Berkowitz and his colleagues (see Table 4) consistently found that more boxes were
4
STUDIES WHICH DEMONSTRATED THE EFFECT OF DEPENDENCY OF THE RECIPIENT ON ALTRUISM
| Author and date | Subjects
Age |
Relationship between dependency of the recipient and altruism | ||
| Berkowitz & Daniels (1963)
Experiment 1 Experiment 2 Daniels & Berkowitz (1963) Berkowitz & Daniels (1964) Berkowitz et al. (1964) Berkowitz & Conner (1966) Berkowitz (1966) Goranson & Berkowitz (1966) Berkowitz & Friedman (1967) Berkowitz (1967) Berkowitz (1968) Schopler & Bateson (1965) Wheeler & Wagner (1968) Midlarsky (1968a) |
M
M M M F M M M M |
cs
cs cs cs cs cs cs 13-16 cs 13-16 cs adult cs |
80
32 80 80 160 108 89 345 192 196 144 80 |
More produced for high vs. low dependent supervisor; no main effect for awareness; no main effect for amount of reward.
More produced for high vs. low dependent supervisor; less produced in Low Awareness X Low Dependency condition. More produced for high vs. low dependent supervisor; less in Low Awareness X Low Dependency; more in High Liking X High Dependency. More produced for high vs. low dependent supervisor; no main effect for awareness. More produced for high vs. low dependent supervisor; no main effect for awareness; no effect for sex of subject or sex of experimenter. More produced for high vs. low (but not medium) dependent supervisor ; more produced in High Dependency X Success than High Dependency X Failure. Study later elaborated by Berkowitz & Friedman (1967) and Berkowitz (1968) ; see below. (High dependency condition only) More produced after voluntary vs. compulsory help for same (vs. different) person; least produced after refused help. (All in high dependency condition) ; sons of bureaucrats produced more than working-class boys; sons of entrepreneurs produced less after receiving low (vs. high) help from another. (1) : More produced for externally-caused high dependency. (2) : More produced for highly dependent others. (4) : Sexdifferences in high and low dependency condition. (All in high dependency condition) ; working-class boys (vs. bureaucratic boys) who received high (vs. low) prior help produced more for the same person. Males gave more to lowly dependent (vs. highly dependent) recipients, and females gave more to highly dependent recipients, when cost of helping was low. More tended to be given in order to help fly relatives to a dying sailor than to help build up a serviceman’s fund.a More shock-contingent problems were solved for high (vs. low) dependent recipients. |
278 DENNIS L. KREBS
TABLE
284 DENNIS L. KREBS
TABLE
ALTRUISM 279
Note.—Abbreviations are: CS — college student.
built by workers in the high dependency condition than workers in the low dependency condition. One study (Berkowitz & Conner, 1966) created three levels of dependency— the supervisor was dependent on the worker for 20%, 50%, or 80% of the points that could earn him a cash prize. Workers whose supervisors were 80% dependent made more paper envelopes than those whose supervisors were 20% dependent.
It might be argued that the altruism shown by the workers was a function of expectations of approval or fear of disapproval. To test these possibilities, Berkowitz and Daniels (1963) and Daniels and Berkowitz (1963) added an “awareness” condition. Workers in the high awareness condition were told that their supervisors would be informed of their productivity during the experiment, and those in the low awareness condition were told that their work would not be examined until after a month. In no case was a main effect found for awareness. However, a combination of (low) dependency and (low) awareness was associated with low production. Moreover, production also failed to increase when the experimenter’s awareness was manipulated (Berkowitz, Klanderman, & Harris, 1964). Berkowitz interpreted the lack of difference between the productivity of the high and low awareness groups in the high dependency condition as support for the assumption that his workers were not motivated toward the attainment of approval or avoidance of punishment. It is also possible that the low awareness manipulation was ineffective. Subjects may have found it difficult to believe that their output would remain unexamined for a month.
