Altruism Among Military Personnel: Social Psychology

Altruism Among Military Personnel
Social Psychology
Amanda Miller
Excelsior College

Altruism among Military Personnel
This paper will be outlined by first discussing research regarding methods the military personnel engage in acts of altruism and pro-social behavior. Altruism behavior results from the selflessness and willingness to help other people without expecting any tangible reward in return. The military personnel have engaged in many acts of altruism that benefit others such as rescuing, protecting, giving humanitarian aid and fighting to save their country. People give out their possession out of good will; they give out time, money and energy. Individuals practice altruism because they feel obliged to important matters in their life such as career, social or religious factors (Gintis et al, 2003). In the past, the military goal in war was to defeat an enemy, thereby securing the country security. This was done by destroying the enemy capacity to fight thus demonstrating to the enemy that victory was impossible. The new doctrine advocates for the creation of safe-havens for the enemies instead of attacking them. This elevates
the value of others over self and can be linked to altruism in military. The Just War Theory provides the basis of military ethics and doctrine and is the core moral principle in today warfare where altruism is applied directly (Fraser et al, 2004).
Altruism exists because of a number of reasons such as biological, cognitive, and neurological factors. Kinship relationship exhibit additional altruistic behaviors because they are always devoted to defending their genes for the future generation. Neurological traces the altruism from part of the brain which activates feelings in the brain (De Waal et al, 2007). Practicing altruistic acts tend to create pleasure on the brain and thus encourage such behaviors. Furthermore, altruistic behaviors create cognitive incentives, which help others benefit from the situation. They help raise ones self-esteem and self-evaluation such as being empathetic and kind to others (Fraser et al, 2004).
Military personnel have biological, neurological and cognitive factors that drive their altruistic deeds. Pure altruism consists of forfeiting something for a person other than the self with no anticipation of any reward or benefits, either direct, or indirect. Personnel in the military put the country security before any personal gain; they risk their life when protecting their country. There has been much debate concerning the existence of true altruism. The theory of psychological egoism argues that no work of helping, sharing or sacrificing can be said as truly altruistic as the actor may obtain an inherent return in the form of individual gratification. However, this argument depends on whether inherent rewards qualify as benefits. Military personnel have engaged in dangerous assignments where the probability of coming out alive is negligible. Such actions are viewed as acts egoism that brings individual gravitation (Fraser et al, 2004).
The concept of altruism has a long history in ethical and philosophical thoughts.
The term altruism was initially coined in 19th century by a philosopher of science and a sociologist, Auguste Comte. This term has developed into a significant topic for evolutionary psychologists, ethologists, and evolutionary biologists. Ideas about altruism from one field have an impact on other fields; the different focuses and methods of these fields portray different perspectives on altruism. Military personnel have engaged in war from time immemorial and thousands of battles have been fought and are documented in history books. Almost all societies have their legends, heroes and heroines that are credited with engaging in altruistic acts by fighting to save their communities. (De Waal et al,
2007).
Altruism is a general attitude to the situation where altruism is viewed as a positive trait. Some people behave altruistically in some circumstances and egoistically in other situations. However, some people have a tendency to behave more altruistically while others tend to act more egoistically. According to research studies, altruism is half-inherited, and it is likely that genetic disparity accounted for over 20% of individual deviation. There are a number of scientific explanations to the existence of altruism and pro-social behavior (De Waal et al, 2007). From the Anthropology point of view, altruism and pro-social behavior existed from the ancient times. According to Marcel Mauss’s book “The Gift”, a passage contained a line- Note on alms. This note confirms the evolution of the notion of alms which represents altruism from the concept of sacrifice. The book describes alms as fruits of moral concept of the gift and fortune, on one hand, and of a view of sacrifice, on the other. This ancient morality of the gift has become a principle of justice (Fraser et al, 2004).
In the study of social evolution, altruism is referred to as actions by a character that boosts the condition of another character while decreasing the condition of the actor. This contradicts the theory of egoistic which put an individual ego and rewards before interest of others. Evolutionary psychology may apply people behaviors such as emergency aid, tipping, charity, courtship, and environmentalism. The need to produce theories that were compatible with evolutionary origins accelerated the theories of apparent altruism behavior. The theory of Kin selection explains that humans or animals are more altruistic towards close family than to distant family and non-kin. Research shows that kinship may unconsciously increase altruistic behavior. Having facial resemblance or having same or rare family name was found to increase helping behavior. Another study revealed that use of kinship terms in political speeches boosted the audience agreement with the speaker. Vested interests groups increase altruistic behavior. Military personnel show compassion to their military counterpart especially when one suffers injuries during combat. Individuals are likely to suffer if their allies, friends, and members of social in-groups suffer. The help expected from these group members eventually benefit altruism. Threat to an in-group causes an extreme self-sacrifice to the in-group members. (Rushton, 1984).
Direct reciprocity indicates that individuals are willing to help others if their action is reciprocated. This is similar to the tit-for-tat strategy in game theory. This theory supports the Just War Theory that advocates for protection of the enemy’s lives. Many individuals follow a similar strategy by cooperating if and only if other individuals cooperate in return. This means that a person is more cooperative if it is more likely that others will interrelate again in the future. If people face non-cooperativeness by others, they tend to help less. An obligation to respond after receiving help induces reciprocity behavior; people become more helpful towards others after being helped (Fraser et al, 2004).
Reciprocity may also be indirect, such cases include the avoidance of poor reciprocators and cheaters in order to uplift someone reputation. Research has revealed that person with a sound reputation for responding has a higher chance of receiving aid even from persons they have no direct interaction previously. Reciprocal altruism may also be categorized as strong reciprocity. In this form of reciprocity, an individual may seem to spend more resources on punishing and cooperating than would be beneficial as the theories of altruism predicts. Reciprocal altruism can still be categorized as pseudo-reciprocity. In this case, an organism behaves altruistically. The recipient does not reciprocate instead has an increased chance of acting in a selfish way an act which gives a byproduct that benefits the altruist. The military applies this strategy to confuse their enemies and eventually attack them (Fraser et al, 2004).
Altruism may be used to show other people that they have resources and are able to gather resources. This may signal to others that the altruist is a valuable partner, cooperative and an interactive person. The U.S. military stationed in Iraq have been engaged in altruistic acts, such as construction of the Iraq’s social institutions, mainly schools and roads and the U.S. mobilized resources from donor countries. Another costly signal is demonstrated by taking a heroic risk-taking. Both costly signaling and indirect reciprocity depend on the value of reputation and have a tendency of having same predictions. An example is the case where individuals give help when they know their actions will be communicated, discussed or observed by all people whom they will interact with later. The U.S. military continues to help Iraq people despite the increased number of insurgencies (Rushton, 1984).
Competition altruism is another reciprocal altruism in which case individuals outdo each other over in the hope of achieving a higher reputation. Some experiments have shown that a substantial percentage of people do not appear to be concerned about reputation and will not help even if this is conspicuous. The altruism benefit of reputation occurs in future in contrast with immediate price of altruism in the present (Rushton, 1984). A research by Jordan Grafman and Jorg Moll, neuroscientists al LABS- D’Or Hospital and National Institutes of Health publication in the United States was published on October, 2006. It revealed the following: charitable donations and pure monetary rewards had an effect on mesolimbic a reward pathway- a primitive part of the brain that is triggered by sex and food. Another brain circuit – subgenual cortex region is triggered when volunteers place interest of others before their on by making charitable donations. The findings concluded that altruism was basic to the brain, pleasurable and hard-wired but not a high moral faculty capable of suppressing selfish desires. An experiment conducted in 2007 at the Duke University in Durham found that altruistic behavior emanate from the individual 's perception of the world instead of their actions. In a research finding published by Nature Neuroscience in 2007, researchers reported having discovered a part of the brain that behaved differently for selfish and altruistic individuals. Many military personnel engage in acts of altruism such as rescuing people from dangerous places out of their individual perceptions (Fraser et al, 2004).
Psychological altruism arises from the acts of self-sacrifice where the actors expect no external rewards for their altruistic behaviors. Social exchange theorists argue that altruism exists when benefits outweigh the cost. However, psychologists who are against social exchange theory argue that there are other motivations for altruism. These motivations are egoism or self-benefits, altruism, benefits for group (collectivism) or upholding moral principle. This theory contradicts the theory of pure altruism. However military personnel exhibit this collectivism especially when they are facing a common enemy (Knafo & Plomin, 2006).
According to Graziano et al (2007), altruism motivates the purest form of pro-social behavior; an unselfish interest in helping a fellow human. The circumstances that evoke altruism are close relationships between the recipient and the benefactor and empathy for a person in need. However, people like reciprocating good deeds done to them. Many pro-social behaviors may appear altruistic; however they may be motivated by the customs of reciprocity, an obligation to return an act of kindness with a favor. Individuals feel guilt when they do not reciprocate and likewise get angry when others refuse to reciprocate. There are some professionals who argue on the nonexistence of altruism and instead see the motivation emanating from reciprocity. The military personnel are not exceptional; they too have an individual level engaged in altruistic deeds out of empathy such as sponsoring children in war ravaged countries.
Situational and individual factors may influence pro-social behavior. Situational factors may guide an individual to analyze the situation and decide to give aid or not. Individuals consider whether or not the situation warrants their assistance if it is their responsibility.
Individuals are usually not likely to take responsibility or act on a situation when other individuals are present. This leads to dilution of responsibility, a situation referred to as the diffusion effect. The bystander effect arises from the crowd behavior and affects an individual’s ability to make a decision or react to general feelings to the environment. Research studies shows that the high number of bystanders is inversely proportional to the likelihood of helping a needy person (Caprara et al, 2000).
According to the recent research, social exclusion decreases the likelihood of occurrence of pro-social behavior. A series of the experiment was conducted to manipulate social exclusion or inclusion by telling participants that other participants had purposely excluded them, or they would end up alone later in life. It was found that social exclusion caused a significant drop in pro-social behavior. The socially excluded people were unwilling to volunteer for further laboratory experiments, became less helpful after a mishap, they made fewer donations to the student fund, and showed less cooperation in a mixed-motive game with fellow students. These effects confirm that pro-social behavior is motivated by a sense of responsibility in sharing of resources and caring for one another in a group (Cole et al, 2003).
Individuals reinforce and maintain their positive self-image or personal ideals and fulfill their own personal needs when acting pro-socially. Empathy-altruism increases the emotional and motivational component of pro-social behavior. Feeling empathy towards a person in need of help increases the likelihood that help will be given. This empathy that is characterized by feelings of compassion, tenderness, and sympathy is referred to as empathetic concern. Agreeableness is a personality trait associated with natural pro-social motivation. Pro-social feelings and thoughts possibly will be defined as a sense of responsibility for other people, and a higher probability of experiencing empathy both cognitively and emotionally (Graziano et al, 2007).
Media programming is a useful tool in evoking pro-social behaviors in children. Channels aimed at younger viewers like the Disney Channel and Nickelodeon had more acts of altruism than the general-audience channels like TNT and A&E. There have been studies that revealed that most of the programs contained more than one act of altruism and the viewer saw at least three acts of altruism per hour. The study also revealed that a third of these behaviors are rewarded in the plot, teaching the children that these acts of pro-social behavior come with positive consequences. If children are shown military videos of heroic acts of rescuing people from dangerous situations they will grow up wanting to emulate the military rescue missions (Dubow et al, 1987).

References
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Pastorelli, C., Bandura, A., & Zimbardo, P. G. (2000). Prosocial foundations of children 's academic achievement. Psychological Science, 11(4), 302–306.
Cole, C. F., Arafat, C., Tidhar, C., Tafesh, W. Z., Fox, N. A., et al. (2003). The educational impact of Rechov Sumsum/Shara 'a Simsim: A Sesame Street television series to promote respect and understanding among children living in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 27, 409–422.
De Waal, F. B. M. (2007). Putting the altruism back into altruism: The evolution of empathy. Annual Review of Psychology, 59(4), 4.1–4.22. Dubow, E. F., Huesmann, L. R., & Eron, L. D. (1987). Mitigating aggression and promoting prosocial behavior in aggressive elementary schoolboys. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 25(6), 527–531.
Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. (2003). The nature of human altruism. Nature, 425(6960), 785–791.
Fraser, M. W., Day, S. H., Galinsky, M. J., Hodges, V. G., & Smokowski, P. R. (2004). Conduct problems and peer rejection in childhood: A randomized trial of the making choices and strong families programs. Research on Social Work Practice, 14, 313–324.
Gintis, H., Bowles, S., Boyd, R., & Fehr, E. (2003). Explaining altruistic behavior in humans. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24(3), 153-172.
Graziano, W. G., Habashi, M. M., Sheese, B. E., & Tobin, R. M. (2007). Agreeableness, empathy, and helping: A person X situation perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(4), 583–59.
Johnson, M. K., Beebe, T., Mortimer, J. T., & Snyder, M. (1998). Volunteerism in adolescence: A process perspective. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 8(3), 309–332.
Knafo, A., & Plomin, R. (2006). Parental discipline and affection and children 's pro-social behavior: Genetic and environmental links. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 147–164.
Levine, R. V., Norenzayan, A., & Philbrick, K. (2001). Cross-cultural differences in helping strangers. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 543–560.
McConnell, A. R., & Leibold, J. M. (2001). Relations among the Implicit Association Test, discriminatory behavior, and explicit measures of racial attitudes. Journal of experimental Social psychology, 37(5), 435-442.
Rushton, J. P. (1984). The altruistic personality: Evidence from laboratory, naturalistic, and self-report perspectives. In E. Staub, D. Bar-Tal, J. Karylowski, & J. Reykowski (Eds.), The Development and Maintenance of Prosocial Behavior: International Perspectives on Positive Development (pp. 271–290). New York: Plenum.
Schmader, T. (2002). Gender identification moderates stereotype threat effects on women 's math performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38(2), 194-201.
Wentzel, K. R., McNamara, B. C., & Caldwell, K. A. (2004). Friendships in middle school: influences on motivation and school adjustment. Journal of Education Psychology, 96(2), 195–203.