Altruism Research

The Open University of Israel Faculty of Social Sciences BA Psychology Program Ψ 2007–12–24 [email protected]

A Good Samaritan Indeed? The Quest for nonBeneficial Altruism in the Material World

Research Seminar on Group Identification Course (10575) Student Name:

Igor Greenblat

Student ID Number:

308896638

Directed By:

Dr. Gal Gorodeisky-Harpaz

1

The Open University of Israel Faculty of Social Sciences BA Psychology Program Ψ 2007–12–24 [email protected]

Contents ABSTRACT

3

INTRODUCTION

4

THE RATIONALE OF CURRENT STUDY REVIEW OF PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR EXPLANATIONS – CLASSIC THEORIES PREDICTIONS OF A COSTLY-SIGNALING THEORY INDEPENDENT VARIABLES DEPENDENT VARIABLE HYPOTHESES THE INTEGRATIVE MODEL

4 5 6 7 8 9 11

METHOD

13

PARTICIPANTS MATERIALS PROCEDURE

13 13 14

RESULTS

15

PREMISE PEARSON LINEAR CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS INTERACTION HYPOTHESIS AND INTEGRATIVE MODEL VALIDATION

15 15 16

DISCUSSION

18

RESULTS SUMMARY EVALUATING THE RESULTS ALTRUISM AS A COSTLY SIGNAL THE RELIGIOSITY PARADOX THE NATURE OF ALTRUISM: INTENTIONAL "GREEDINESS" OR EVOLUTIONARY SURVIVAL MECHANISM? "EVOLUTION OF COOPERATION" – THE GAME THEORY PSYCHOLOGICAL EGOISM HERBERT SIMON AND THE BOUNDED RATIONALITY IS IT GOOD TO BE GOOD? DRAWBACKS AND "WEAK POINTS" OF THE CURRENT STUDY THE EPILOGUE – SOME INSIGHTS ON ALTRUISM IN THE NEW MILLENNIA AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

18 18 19 22 23 24 24 25 25 25 26

REFERENCES

28

APPENDIXES

37

APPENDIX I: THE RELIGIOUS COMMITMENT INVENTORY (RCI-10) 10-ITEM SELF-IDENTIFICATION SCALE APPENDIX II: MEHRABIAN'S 11-ITEM CONFORMITY SCALE APPENDIX III: ROSENBERG'S SELF-ESTEEM 10-ITEM SCALE APPENDIX IV: THE PROSOCIAL TENDENCIES MEASURED – REVISED (PTM-R) 23-ITEM SCALE

37 38 39 40

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

42

2

The Open University of Israel Faculty of Social Sciences BA Psychology Program Ψ 2007–12–24 [email protected]

Abstract The study examines the ability of three independent variables (personal self-esteem, social conformity and religiosity level) to predict tendency towards prosocial behavior. Each of one hundred and twenty participants drawn from heterogenic population completed a questionnaire containing four sub-tests measuring the attributes. The Introduction chapter presents a review of classic and modern theories on prosociality, hypotheses of the present study derive from theories in a field of social psychology. Additionally an integrative theoretical model underlying the relations between the variables is suggested; an interaction hypothesis predicting the strongest effect is proposed as well. The population of the research, data collecting method and materials are presented in the Method chapter. The summary of empiric results of the research followed by statistical analyses is presented in the Results chapter. In the final chapter the results and their implication are discussed; the Discussion chapter includes the dispute on nature of human altruism as well, whether it is "impure" (motivated by the expectation of material rewards of self-interest) or "pure", meaning people help as a consequence of personal traits, which form the "altruistic personality" or out of a sense of duty to uphold certain moral principles. It is important to clarify, that the ability of the current research to counterpoise such a complicated philosophic subject is restricted; the goal is not to solve the altruism/egoism controversy, but to speculate the validity of the popular conceptions regarding the issue. Both the theoretic question concerning the nature of human altruism that will be raised in this study and the presented empiric research designed to evaluate the predictors of prosociality are two corresponding paths of an effort to understand the mechanism of prosociality.

3

The Open University of Israel Faculty of Social Sciences BA Psychology Program Ψ 2007–12–24 [email protected]

"We should often blush at our noblest deeds If the world were to see all their underlying motives" - Francois De La Rochefoucauld

Introduction The Rationale of Current Study It is suggested that religiosity, self-esteem and social conformity are reliable predictors of prosocial tendencies. Following the premises of Costly-Signaling Theory (firstly proposed by Amotz Zahavi, 1975) prosocial tendencies are examples of social signaling behavior patterns; religious, conformal and insecure people need to perform social signaling in order to satisfy their psychological and evolutionary needs. Bulbulia (2004) reviewed the role of religion as a reciprocal altruistic signaling pattern from the cognitive point of view. The complexity of the links between prosociality and self-esteem was presented and discussed recently (Carlo, G., Laible, D.J., & Roesch, S.C., 2004; Feather N.T., 1991; Ben-Shlomo, S., Findler, L., & Taubman-Ben-Ari, O., 2005). Although majority of research concerning the conformity-prosociality linkage has been performed in twentieth century (Boyd & Richerson's Conformist Transmission Model, 1985; Asch, 1951), the presumption that human co-operative behavior is based on conformal socialization and "culturization" processes is supported by the researchers nowadays and recently was validates by corresponding computer model (Coultas, J.C., 2004). Applied scientists, such as organizational behavior researchers are interested in implications of conformity-cooperation route on leadership and followership (Van Vugt, M., 2005). The current study presents an explanation of the correlations between the variables basing on Costly-Signaling Theory and suggests comprehending humans as "benefit seekers", however not claiming for the weighed utilitarianism of the human psyche, but rather targeting to evolutional roots of prosociality. Costly-Signaling theory can be applied broadly to human and non-human alike, and as such fascinating researchers in a wide range of fields, including biology, economics, sociology, anthropology, political science, communication studies, linguistics, philosophy, and psychology. Since the posteriori results of this study were not

4

The Open University of Israel Faculty of Social Sciences BA Psychology Program Ψ 2007–12–24 [email protected]

coherent with assumptions made a-priori, a broad presentation of the theoretic base was crucial in order to re-evaluate the relations between the social values involved in the research. Review of Prosocial Behavior Explanations – Classic Theories The theoretical study of the never-ending competition between altruism and egoism is a fascinating one with endless possibilities. Altruism (derived from French autre "another") describes people's tendency to put the welfare of others ahead of their own. Why people act altruistically? What drives people like Mother Theresa? No unanimity regarding the entity of the topic achieved so far; appears that vast variety of conflicting views derive from different conceptions of human nature, either psychological, evolutionary-biological or philosophic. The psychoanalytical approach to altruism ties pro-social behavior (as a part of morality values cluster) to Ego and Super-Ego formation processes, leaning on self-identification patterns and unconscious internalization of social laws, represented by morality. Psychotherapists emphasize the importance of identification and childhood experiences for acquiring adult prosocial behavioral patterns. Adolescent behavior according to psychoanalysis is characterized by tendency for self-satisfaction, so-called Adolescent Egocentrism (Holder, 1995) and therefore prosocial tendencies evolve only in later period but not in early childhood. The Social and Emotional Development theory (Ericsson, 1959) emphasizes the importance of parental treatment as well; a child, according to Ericsson, evolves basic trust or basic distrust towards his parents and so his tendency towards pro-social behavior in the adulthood is reinforced. Social Learning Theories (Sears, Maccoby & Levin, 1957; Skinner, 1971; Bandura, 1977; Mayer, Caruso, & Salovey, 1999) arise from behaviorist's claim, that pro-social behavior is learned in person's social environment via modeling, positive and negative reinforcements of expedient and non-expedient social behaviors and developed as a part of a much wider socialization processes in which parents' role is critical. Pro-social skills are internalized gradually, as long as the environment is not demanding major behavioral changes. Cognitive development theories (Piaget, 1977; Kohlberg, 1958; Kohlberg, 1973 & Eisenburg, 1995) claim that the child is involved in an interactive relationship with his environment since his birth; the necessary attendants of the interaction are assimilation and accommodation processes of the socio-cognitive data; infant’s behavior will differ from his peers' because of social data processing varieties. The pre-operational stage of cognitive 5

The Open University of Israel Faculty of Social Sciences BA Psychology Program Ψ 2007–12–24 [email protected]

development is characterized by egoistic and concrete cognitive patterns; mental symbolization ability allows the child to see the world out of his egocentric point of view, "through the eyes of others", to think abstractly and to understand the principles of reciprocity. The Socio-biological attachment approach (John Bowlby, 1958) is the most deterministic and yet most optimistic among all other theories; Bowlby claims, that pro-social behavior is programmed genetically in our DNA, its substantiation evolves as much as the environment allows it. Jean-Jacques Rousseau suggests that human development is a positive process, unless "interrupted by the society". Parents should not interfere their children’s natural development, and so most of the juniors will make efforts to fulfill their parents' wishes (Ainsworth, Bell and Stayton, 1974). How a behavior that reduces an individual's fitness (naturally requiring selfishness) survived the selective forces of natural selection? None of the classic theories speculates about the motivational nature of human prosociality as well. The recent and most relevant for current study approach in the area that dares to discuss core issues of altruistic motivation from evolutionary point of view is Costly-Signaling Theory (CST). Costly signaling theory explains how individuals use costly behaviors to spread partially concealed (in order to avoid suspicion of bragging) information about their positive qualities, such as intelligence (Dewitte, C. & Millet, K., 2007, in press) or social dominance (Neiman, 1999). According to CST researchers, altruistic behavior is no more than a self-advertising strategy, showing off the colorful peacock tail, a "way of positioning oneself for access to resources during unforeseen future times of need" (Boone, 1998). Predictions of a Costly-Signaling Theory A costly signal is a “social signal whose reliability is ensured because its cost is greater than required by efficacy requirements; the signal may be costly to produce, or have costly consequences" (Harper & Smith, 2003). Costly signaling for purposes of mating, alliance formation, and warning of potential enemies, although originally deriving from the animal world has been reported among humans as well (Zahavi, 1977; Maynard Smith, 1991; Johnstone, 1995; Wright, 1999 & Grafen, 2006). According to CST, altruistic actions are "social signals", indicating the society about sender’s personal qualities. Seems that many great acts of generosity, altruism and helping are expressions of pursuit for self-enhancement,

6

The Open University of Israel Faculty of Social Sciences BA Psychology Program Ψ 2007–12–24 [email protected]

motivated by the pursuit of self-esteem, and therefore guided by an egoistic concern (Crocker&Park, 2004; Pysczcynski, Greenberg & Goldenberg, 2002; Solomon et al., 1991). Moreover, costly signaling, in form of providing benefits to others, is able to solve the problem of maintaining cooperation in a group (Gintis et. al, 2001). Since humans are "social animals", the cooperation between and within social groups, including "genetic strangers", is crucial for social success. Why humans invest time and energy in signaling to others? CST predicts, that pro-social behavior towards others will occur only, if those who observe the signal will respond with high probability in ways favorable to the signaler, in other words the probable future benefit or "the expectation of deceit" for the performer is the motive altruistic activity (Gintis et al., 2001). Independent Variables Self-esteem appears to be a major part of both personal and social self-definition, most often it refers to the positivity of the one's global evaluation of the self. There are several definitions of the term, including "the average tone of self-feeling that each of us carries about with him, and which is independent of the objective reasons we may have for satisfaction or discontent" (James, 1890), "a self-reflexive attitude that results from conceiving the self as an object of evaluation" (Rosenberg, 1965) and "a basic universal human need to feel good about ourselves" (Dutton &.Brown, 1997). Self-esteem is valuable only when the self has social meaning and based on comparison to others, according to Festinger's Social Comparison Theory (Festinger, 1954). Recent studies support the importance of early adaptation of positive self-esteem for general positive social functioning in adulthood (Feinstein, 2000), successful marriage (Shackelford, 2001), social attractiveness (Lerner & Taylor, 2003) and stress immunity (Bonanno et al, 2002). Low self-esteem was associated with negative cognitive schemes causing psychopathological problems (Van Zyl et al., 2006), eating disorders such as obesity (Young-Hyman et al., 2003), anorexia and bulimia (Erkolahti et al., 2002). Urdan and Midgley (2002) suggested that fear of failure and ridicule, typical to "low self-estimators" is a motivator of self-handicapping behaviors. Apparently, high self-esteem is a valuable and important virtue; those who lack it might consider its achievement "effort-worthy" and invest energy (social signaling) in order to boost their self-esteem.

7

The Open University of Israel Faculty of Social Sciences BA Psychology Program Ψ 2007–12–24 [email protected]

Conformity level – conformity is a tendency to change perceptions, cognitions or behavior, in order to fit social norms (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004). People avoid violating social norms, knowing that exceptional opinion is not popular. Conformity also underlines one's willingness to identify with others and emulate them, to avoid negative interactions and generally to be a follower, rather than a leader in terms of ideas, values and behaviors (Van Vugt, 2005); therefore conformity can be polarized to traits like opportunism, leadership and risk-taking tendency. Sometimes conformal predisposition causes people to act accordingly to acceptable "majority schematics" even if people know that those are completely wrong (Asch, 1951; Sheriff, 1961). Apart the negative aspects, conformity helps to sustain group stability and highly encouraged in some of the Eastern societies that admire collectivistic values (Logan & Qirko, 1998). In the Western culture, conformity is not a valuable trait, but rather a personal need based on a fear of social exclusion and peer's rejection (Miller, W., 1958) that might require a satisfaction and therefore capable to catalyze social signaling. Religiosity level – According to the consensus document from the National Institute for Healthcare Research (Hill et al., 1998), religiosity is defined as “the feelings, thoughts, experiences, and behaviors that arise from a search for the sacred”. The research of religiosity fascinates scientists; some of the investigated issues are the relationship between religiosity and socio-economic values (Garza & Neuman, 2004), addictive behaviors of religious people (Nollen et al., 2004) and correlation of religiosity level and IQ (Clark, 2004). Religious commitment is comprised of two aspects - religious consciousness and religious participation. Religious consciousness is the degree by which individuals pursue the importance of religion in everyday affairs while religious participation is the involvement in all activities pertaining to religion (Abdon, N., 1997). The questionnaire included in this study is testing both. Dependent variable Prosocial behavior tendency – a tendency to be concerned with and helpful to others; will be measured using 23-item PTR-M (Prosocial Tendencies Measure – Revised) questionnaire (5 – point Likert response scale), developed by Carlo, Christiansen, Haussmann and Randall. Gustavo Carlo (Carlo et al., 2003) defined six types of prosocial behaviors: Public prosocial behavior intended to benefit others enacted in the presence of others; Anonymous prosocial behavior is a tendency to help others without other people's knowledge; Dire prosocial behavior refer to helping other under crisis conditions; Emotional prosocial behavior benefits 8

The Open University of Israel Faculty of Social Sciences BA Psychology Program Ψ 2007–12–24 [email protected]

others enacted under emotionally loaded conditions; Compliant prosocial behavior means to help upon being asked to; Altruism refers to helping others when there is a little or no perceived potential for a direct, explicit reward to the self. Hypotheses Negative correlation between the self-esteem and altruistic behavior tendency. A pursuit of self-esteem provides a powerful source of motivation (Crocker & Park, 2004). The "desired self" (a self-image that an individual would like to be) is usually very positive; people attempt to approximate their "actual self" (self-image that an individual believes that he or she has about himself) to the "desired self" (Higgins, 1987). However, when people recognize that these types of self have discrepancies, they might experience negative affects. The gap between the actual and desired perceptions of the self, in some cases, pushes the person to seek for equilibrium between defined sorts of self-perceptions according to Self-Efficacy Theory (Bandura 1978a). Additionally, the Mattering (a feeling that one counts or really makes a difference, Rosenberg, 1985) is a strong predictor of mental well-being and Elliott, Colangelo and Gilles (2005) found an association between mattering and levels of selfesteem, in other words positive self-image is corresponding with high level of self-efficiency. Positive correlation between the level of conformity and altruistic behavior tendency. Social norms support altruism by promoting conformity (Lindbeck & Nyberg, 2006). The hypothesis is supported by Milgram's (1970) cognitive overload theory. From "Lost Letter Technique" studies we conclude, that the level of social response differs between the urban and the rural population – while city dwellers are expected to become generally indifferent to, and make fewer differentiations between "unimportant others" due to the cognitive overload, village and small towns inhabitants tend to be more "socially responsible". Altruism is especially likely to be observed toward in-group members (Triandis, 1994). Since social norms in "smaller" places are strict and social responsibility level is higher, greater intolerance for social deviance as gay relationships and children born out of the marital frame is observed in small towns. Higher levels of social conformity encourage (or encouraged by) collectivist values as caring, cooperation, sense of "togetherness", group entitativity, "normative" political beliefs, etc. The meaning of helping group members increases, this type of altruistic behavior have much in similar with sociobiological mechanisms, which suggest contribution to other's wealth in order to be rewarded in need. The conclusion from all the stated above: conformity demands helping others, therefore positive correlation between the 9

The Open University of Israel Faculty of Social Sciences BA Psychology Program Ψ 2007–12–24 [email protected]

conformity level and the tendency to altruistic tendency is expected. Another factor that might contribute to the linkage suggested above is the prediction of Janis' group think model (Janis, 1982). According to the model, group conformity and groupthink positively correlate with low personal self-esteem, which supposedly contributes to pro-social behavior. Religion contributes to prosociality perceptions among Jewish population – high selfindicated religiosity level predicts higher prosocial tendency, comparatively to secular participants. The widespread assumption is that religion contributes to prosociality. Religion, as part of culture provides mechanisms that control the natural destructiveness of humans caused by their "greedy" tendencies, such as narcissism and sexual impulses (Freud, 1927). Christian saints and holy figures are models of charity and altruism; their behaviors are pragmatically risky, but important for the human community. Religious people tend to be (or at least perceive themselves) as prosocial and helpful, agreeable and ready to forgive, many see religion as "social adhesive", promoting altruism and mutuality. In contrast, the dominant conclusion of Psychology of Religion is that religious people only appear to be helpful and prosocial; they are preoccupied with their positive self-perception rather then by the needs of others. Pfeuffer (2006) suggests that that religious involvement may be taken as an example in a ’signaling’ approach to the evolution of cooperation, therefore participation in religious activities allows to create a cost-benefit tradeoff. The contrast between the ideals and selfperceptions of religious people on one hand and results of studies using other research strategies in the other hand is so striking, that researchers may be tempted to suspect moral hypocrisy in religious people. Significant amount of research performed in this subject (Orbell, 1992; Smith & Kim, 2004), although most of the studies base on Christian morale and its contribution to prosocial behavior. Christianity is proclaiming altruism even more than its theological predecessor. While Judaism claims to pay an equal reward to an aggressor – "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth", Jesus Christ's suggests his followers: "If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; and if anyone wants to sue you and take your outer garment, give your undergarment as well; and if one of the occupation troops forces you to carry his pack one mile, go two." (The New Testament, Matthew 5:38-41). The Buddhist and the Islamic modus operandi seems to be “overly-altruistic” too: “The man who foolishly does me wrong, I will return him the protection of my most ungrudging love” (Buddha), “By no means shall you attain righteousness unless you spend of that which you

10

The Open University of Israel Faculty of Social Sciences BA Psychology Program Ψ 2007–12–24 [email protected]

love” (Qur’an 3:92), "None of you truly believes until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself" (Saheeh Al-Bukhari, a Muslim scholar and poet). However, history tells us that words and deeds are not always corresponding - hundreds of thousands were burned alive “in the name of Jesus” by the holy inquisition; the hatred between Shiite Muslims and Sunnites harvests thousands of dead bodies; in the 14th century Buddhist fighters led the uprising that evicted the Mongols from China, killing thousands; in Japan, Buddhist monks trained Samurai warriors in meditation that made them better killers; in the twentieth century Japanese Zen masters wrote in support of Japan’s wars of aggression… Majority of the research linking religion and altruism is based on Christian morale; the present study is testing the religiosity – prosociality linkage among the Jewish population of Israel. It is proposed that allegedly higher altruistic tendency underlined by an urge "to present a divine kindness" is typical for Jewish religious people as well. The integrative model The subject of this paper – predicting altruistic behavior, is widely covered by broad spectrum of researchers in a variety of academic fields – psychology, biology, sociology, political science, economy, etc. The presented integrative model is based on socioevolutionary approach of Costly-Signaling Theory.

11

The Open University of Israel Faculty of Social Sciences BA Psychology Program Ψ 2007–12–24 [email protected]

The model above is coherent with proposed research hypotheses; in addition, it suggests the social conformity level as a mediator between both religiosity and self-esteem variables and altruism. According to the presented model, religiosity contributes to altruism both directly, via religious norms of cooperation and charity and indirectly, mediated by social conformity. Religion often demands boundless and blind obedience rather then understanding from its followers (Wagener, 1998); the conformity constructed by obedience requires sticking to the norms of majority, above the religion. People whose Self-Esteem level is low usually lack individualistic qualities such as leadership and independent thinking, according to Janis' group think model (Janis, 1982) group conformity and groupthink correlate with low personal self-esteem. Interaction Hypothesis: It was predicted that interaction of low Self-Esteem level with high Religiosity and Conformity levels would have the strongest effect on Altruistic Behavior Tendency.

12

The Open University of Israel Faculty of Social Sciences BA Psychology Program Ψ 2007–12–24 [email protected]

Method Participants The sample was comprised of one hundred and twenty adult male and female participants seventy-four males and forty six females; ages ranged from 24.5 to 59 with mean of 33.7 years. All the participants are Israeli citizens, while Hebrew is a mother tongue for seventyeight of them and the remaining forty-two speak Hebrew fluently. The sample was drawn from a broad heterogenic population – friends, college students, colleagues, parents and their friends; all of them Jewish, moderately religious, secular or agnostic; most of them holding high education diplomas (BA or higher). Three participants did not complete the combined questionnaire; their questionnaires were not included in the pool. The participation in an anonymous research was voluntary. Materials All one hundred and twenty participants completed a questionnaire containing: 1. The Religious Commitment Inventory (RCI-10) Religiosity 10-item selfidentification scale (see Appendix I). The scale is a refinement of the RCI-17 (McCullough et. al, 1997) questionnaire, which demonstrated high internal consistency (α=0.94). The RCI-17 is based on Worthington's theory of religious values (Worthington et al., 1988). 2. Mehrabian's 11-item conformity scale (see Appendix II) designed to reduce "acquiescence bias" – the tendency of some people to agree or to disagree with any statement. The items are valuated via 9-point agreement-disagreement scale. In terms of internal consistency, the mean absolute value of all 11-item total correlations is 0.54. 3. Rosenberg's 10-item scale (RSE, see Appendix III) is used to assess global selfesteem. Significant construct validity (p<0.05) between RSE and self-reports, nurses' opinions, ratings of depression, psycho-physiological indicators of anxiety and other relevant constructs was measured. Cronbach's alpha coefficient is 0.78. 4. The Prosocial Tendencies Measured – Revised (PTM-R) 25-item scale (see Appendix IV) measures six prosocial sub-behaviors: Public, Anonymous, Dire, Emotional, Compliant and Altruistic tendencies. Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the PTM-R composite is 0.87.

13

The Open University of Israel Faculty of Social Sciences BA Psychology Program Ψ 2007–12–24 [email protected]

All the questionnaires were translated from English to Hebrew and combined into a single sheet, including a short foreword section and four sub-tests. SPSS 14.0 processing software (evaluation version) was utilized while performing all statistical calculations. Procedure Each participant was asked to complete the combined questionnaire and return it filled, manually or by e-mail. The participants were informed that the research investigates social tendencies and behavioral patterns among Israelis. The foreword section contained commitment of anonymousness and a request to read the instructions for each sub-test carefully. The time gap between the reception of the questionnaire and its returning varied between one and seventeen days, there was no time pressure or intentional researcher's bias of any sort. None of the participants filled the questionnaire in the presence of the researcher or returned the questionnaire in the day of reception.

14

The Open University of Israel Faculty of Social Sciences BA Psychology Program Ψ 2007–12–24 [email protected]

Results Premise Prior to the major data collection, twenty-six participants were tested using the same combined questionnaire in order to examine the apparent tendencies. The results of the pretest indicated no expected statistical correlation between independent variables and the altruistic tendency, in contrary to a-priory hypothesis. All three hypothesized correlations, although insignificant due to insufficient number of participants (twenty-six only) in the pretest, correlated with other type of prosocial tendency: while low self-esteem, high religiosity and high conformity levels were predicted to correlate positively with Altruistic prosocial tendency, the posteriori results show expected correlations but with Public prosocial tendency and very weak correlations with Altruism. The pre-test results shifted the focus of the research to broader investigation of prosocial norms. Since PTM-R allows the measurement of Public, Anonymous, Dire, Compliant and Emotional forms of prosocial norms additionally to Altruism, all six sub-forms were included in the research. A particular attention was focused on Public prosocial tendency linkage with all three independent variables, since it significantly correlated (r= -0.32, the "broad test" result and r=-0.37 in "pre-test", α=0.05) with Altruistic tendency. Public Prosocial tendency is defined by Gustavo Carlo (Carlo, G., et al., 2002) as a "tendency to benefit others enacted in the presence of others", namely helping people when others are watching. Since no predicted correlation between independent variables and Altruism were observed, altruistic values were not included in the regression analysis. Pearson Linear Correlation Coefficients The following table presents Pearson's linear correlation coefficients between independent variables: Religious Beliefs Religious Beliefs Conformity Self-Esteem

Conformity 0.07

Self-Esteem -0.32

0.01

Among three possible correlations, only the correlation between Self-Esteem and Conformity found significant (α=0.05).

15

The Open University of Israel Faculty of Social Sciences BA Psychology Program Ψ 2007–12–24 [email protected]

The following table presents Pearson's linear correlation coefficients (indicating main effects) between all independent and dependent variables: Independent \ Dependent Religious Beliefs

Public

Anonymous

Dire

Emotional

Compliant

Altruism

0.31

0.07

0.15

0.08

0.05

-0.16

0.43 -0.36

-0.20 0.13

0.001 0.04

0.11 -0.04

0.09 -0.008

-0.21 0.19

Conformity Self-Esteem

Among eighteen possible correlations, only the correlations between Public prosocial tendencies with all three independent variables found significant (α=0.05). Interaction Hypothesis and Integrative Model Validation All statistical regression tests were performed for α=0.05. The interaction hypothesis predicted low Self-Esteem level with high Religiosity and Conformity levels as the combination with the strongest effect on Altruistic tendency. Since the dependent variable was shifted to Public social tendency instead of Altruism, the ability of combination to predict high Public social tendency was tested. Univariate analysis of variance (regression analysis) was performed in order to check the effects.

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Dependent Variable: pub Partial Eta Squared .262

Sig. .000

F 8.102

Mean Square 117.774

5

Type III Sum of Squares 588.868(a)

.867

.000

740.372

10762.228

1

10762.228

.099

.001

12.555

182.504

1

182.504

relig_hl

.066

.005

8.023

116.625

1

116.625

comf_hl

.102

.000

13.016

189.204

1

189.204

esteem_hl

.009

.305

1.060

15.412

1

15.412

.000

.952

.004

.053

1

.053

14.536

114

1657.132

120

14246.000

119

2246.000

df

Source Corrected Model Intercept

relig_hl * comf_hl comf_hl * esteem_hl Error Total

a R Squared = .262 (Adjusted R Squared = .230)

Main effects: Religiosity – F (1,114) =12.555; PV=0.001

16

Corrected Total

The Open University of Israel Faculty of Social Sciences BA Psychology Program Ψ 2007–12–24 [email protected]

Conformity – F (1,114) =8.023; PV=0.05 Self-Esteem – F (1,114) =13.016; PV=0.000 Interaction effects: Interaction of Religiosity * Conformity – F (1,114) =1.06; PV= 0.305 Interaction of Conformity * Self-Esteem – F (1,114) =.004; PV= 0.952 All the main effects are significant for the given alpha; no significant interaction effects between the variables were observed. The analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed no significant mediation of Conformity level variable, when Conformity is held constant there were no significant effect of ReligiosityPublic Prosociality and Self-Esteem – Public Prosociality relations.

17

The Open University of Israel Faculty of Social Sciences BA Psychology Program Ψ 2007–12–24 [email protected]

Discussion Results Summary 1. All three independent variables (Religiosity, Social Conformity and Self-Esteem) significantly predict Public Prosocial behavior tendency. 2. As expected, a significant linear correlation between self-esteem and conformity level (P=-0.32) measured. This outcome is coherent with previous studies (Milgram, 1977; De Charms & Rosenbaum, 1957) 3. The proposed integrative model is faulty, although the main and the interactive effects exist, only the main effects found statistically significant. 4. None of the predictors contributes to Altruistic prosocial behavior tendency. 5. The predicted interaction between independent variables fails to contribute to Public Behavior tendency or Altruism. 6. Higher religiosity predicts higher Public prosocial tendency and does not predict higher altruism. Evaluating the Results Three independent variables of the current research significantly predict Public behavior tendency. As the "fixed" first hypothesis (replacing the "Altruism" by "Public prosociality") stated, low Self-Esteem levels negatively and significantly correlated to Public prosociality (r=-0.36, significant for any alpha level). Coherently with the second and third "fixed" hypotheses, high Conformity and Religiosity levels significantly correlated with high Public prosociality (r=0.43 and r=0.31, significant for any alpha level). However, the integrative model failed to prove the predicted links. The revised model, containing valid relations between the variables is presented:

18

The Open University of Israel Faculty of Social Sciences BA Psychology Program Ψ 2007–12–24 [email protected]

The negative correlation between the Self-Esteem and Conformity levels is significant (r=0.32), although the mediation of the conformity variable was not proved, while conformity is held constant no significant cumulative effect of the remaining independent variables found significant. It was suggested here, that conformity mediates part of a correlation between the religiosity and prosocial tendency. However, ANOVA results revealed no correlation of a kind; only the main effect of religiosity and Public Prosociality was significant. The hypothesis linking high conformity and religiosity levels was based on personal observation of the suggestive power of religious leaders and their effect on believers. One who radically believes in religious leader's opinion not because he has reasons for thinking he is more likely to be right, but simply because faith requires him to do so, is able to perform extremely radical acts which cannot be explained by other reason than religious conformity. Mass suicides occur in religious or occult settings, such as the legendary collectively committed suicide of 960 members of the Sicarii Jewish community at Masada (rather than be conquered and enslaved by the Romans, each man killed his wife and children, then the men drew lots and killed each other until the last man killed himself) or the Jonestown suicides in Guyana, where 913 people died in 1978 under the direction of Jim Jones, an evangelist preacher and head of the Peoples Temple (of the 914 dead, 276 were children and over 100 of the adults were murdered). The absence of hypothesized correlation between the religiosity and the conformity can be explained by relatively narrow "religiosity margin" of the participants, none of them belonged to Jewish orthodox community. It appears that religious conformity is likely to occur among extremely religious populations, which were not included in the current research. The interaction hypothesis is invalid as well. Religious, conformal people with low selfesteem are neither particularly "high" in Public Prosociality nor in Altruism. Altruism as a Costly Signal One of the goals of the current paper was to investigate the meaning of term "altruism" by evaluating its correlation with three personal characteristics – Personal Self-Esteem, Social Conformity and Religiosity. As it was described in the previous chapter, the preliminary (as well as the final) results didn't indicate any support to the hypotheses and therefore the focus of the research was shifted to another - Public - type of prosocial tendency. Gustavo Carlo (Carlo, G., et al., 2003) hypothesizes that "specific prosocial behaviors would be related differently to specific sociocognitive and socioemotive skills" and links it to approval19

The Open University of Israel Faculty of Social Sciences BA Psychology Program Ψ 2007–12–24 [email protected]

oriented prosocial reasoning. Both Altruistic and Public prosocial tendencies are sub-chapters of the broad set of personal qualities called "Prosocial behaviors" and both describe helping patterns and assume a certain personality structure performing those behaviors or even declaring to behave in coherency with presented behavioral patterns. However, there is a major difference between those two values (supported statistically by the negative correlation mentioned above, r=-0.32 in current research and -0.22 in Gustavo Carlo's), it re-evaluates the rationale of this work and therefore will now be discussed broadly. The essence of human nature has been a philosophical dispute during the past centuries. Philosophers throughout the ages have debated whether humans actually intend to perform actions beneficial to others and costly to themselves without any clear resolution. In recent years, psychologists have addressed the enduring debate with data on the mental experiences leading to helping behaviors, however these studies produce conflicting results according the nature of helping mechanism, whether it is egoistic (Bloom & Clark, 1976), empathetic (Christopher, 2006) or a combination of self-oriented and altruistic motivations that serve as equal and essential partners in human evolution and development, both necessary for evolutionary advancement and for psychological health (Shapiro & Gabard, 1994). Alice Schlegel (1980) highlights two types of altruism: pure altruism allows no expectation of any benefits whatsoever to the giver and generalized (impure, egoistic, beneficial) altruism describes situations, when the giver expects (even if not consciously) to receive some benefit. She suggests that generalized altruism is more likely to be found in individualistic societies. Lee (2005) suggests that altruistic behavior is related to the Daoistic model of "wateristic" personality and highly regarded by Asian cultures while aggressive and competitive behavior is valued by people of European descent. Fehr, Fishbacher and Gacher (2001) suggest that humans have a tendency to cooperate voluntarily if treated fairly and the reciprocity (generalized altruism) is a powerful device of social control. The Social Psychology literature shows that increased visibility of behavior increases co-operation in a range of social dilemmas (Benzioni et al., 1996). Several of these hypotheses concerning altruism are supported empirically, but the general impression after reviewing reasonable amount of altruism research is, that if the "generalized" (kin, impure) altruism is considered as a biological reality, "pure" or "nonbeneficial" altruism exists only "in the eye of the beholder”. In a sarcastic way of speech, altruism frequently is purely "impure", even if considered nonbeneficial by humans. Every altruistic act could be interpreted as a "greedy" behavior, just if the interpreter dares to be cynical enough. Human relief donations might be a 20

The Open University of Israel Faculty of Social Sciences BA Psychology Program Ψ 2007–12–24 [email protected]

way to escape feelings of guilt caused by sins of the past or a wish to "eternize" the memory of a diseased; donating money and helping poor might disguise an electoral campaign intentions, as many Israelis claim about the former Soviet oligarch Arcady Gaidamak; reputation can also play an important role in reciprocal altruism, when individuals benefit from learning if their future social partners previously defected or cooperated with others, therefore "spreading the knowledge" about one's charity deeds or another variation of altruistic behavior might increase his chances to gain social status (Fehr, 2004). If going to extreme, even Mother Theresa's deeds closely tied to the Catholic perception of heaven and its "enrolling methods". Religious beliefs, including promised rewards in the afterlife facilitate the cooperation by altering the perceived payoffs of costly actions, including suicidal terrorism. The Costly-Signaling Theory (Smith and Bird, 2000; Miller, 2000; Grafen, 1990; Spence, 1973; Zahavi 1975) supports those "insights" by empirical research and solid theoretical acknowledgements; it suggests the following: "Extreme forms of philanthropy and altruism are conspicuous displays of resources that serve to reinforce one's status." CST supporters see hidden beneficial motives beyond altruistic behaviors – "Apparently, having everyone owe you for past unselfishness can be a good hedge against future calamities". Seems, as if the difference between some altruistic “charities” and Marxian capitalists’ compulsion of humans to “increase their relative surplus value” is not as significant... The vampire bat after extracting blood from its prey may return to its cave to regurgitate some food for a friend who has had less luck that night. By sharing the leftovers of his feast, the altruistic bat increases the chances that the friend it helped will help him out later on in its own time of need. The same goes for humans. How does a person know that his efforts and good deeds will be retaliated? The most confident way is to behave prosocialy when somebody else is watching. Performing Prosocial behavior in the presence of spectators, according to Costly-Signaling Theory (Zahavi, 1975), benefits both the "signaler" by increasing his social value and the observer, because the signals provide him with useful social information. According to Grafen (Grafen, 1990), altruism as a costly signal might be an evolutionary stable strategy. Costly-signaling (also called "The Competitive Altruism") Theory supporters (Parks & Vu, 1994; McAndrew, 2002; Zahavi & Zahavi, 1997) claim that there are several conditions that must be met in order for competitive altruism to emerge: the behavior must be costly for the author to display in the short run, it must be easily observable to others, the signal must be a reliable indicator of some underlying trait or characteristic of the signaler and finally, the behavior must be in the 21

The Open University of Israel Faculty of Social Sciences BA Psychology Program Ψ 2007–12–24 [email protected]

long run benefit the actor who displays it. Religious people are signaling the world about their altruism because they want God to like them, conformal people are signaling because "that's the way descent people behave" and public approval is significantly important for nonconfident people, who are signaling in order to improve their rigid self-esteem. The signaling is indeed costly in the short run, but the benefit in the end is not bad as well, whether it is the eternal life for Catholic, public approval for conformist or self-esteem boosting applause from the society for a person who seeks for it. People compete each with other in "being generous", because the "halo" of an altruist might produce long-term benefits. Moreover, Gintis et al. (2001) suggest, that "well-known altruists" have an advantage over "common" people when violating social norms as well, since the society feels that certain level of equilibrium has to be gained in order to sustain collective well-being, it might be more forgiving when penalizing an altruist. It is a wellknown fact, that generous deeds in the past might macerate the level of punishment in the law court and soften a verdict. Signaling prosocial quality and reciprocity is a socially worthy phenomenon of evolutionary development. The Religiosity Paradox Religious altruists are motivated to altruism from a belief in supernatural powers capable of rewarding altruism and punishing defection (Bulbulia, 2004). Supernatural rewards may be in kind: do good and good will be done to you. One of the most valuable traits of a religious person is a charity giving. Maimonides (Rambam), a Jewish Rabbi, Physician and Philosopher, one of the most important, acknowledged and respected personalities of the Jewish world and the medieval Spain as well, enumerated the forms of charity, from the greatest to the most weak: 1. Giving charity anonymously to the unknown recipient 2. Giving charity anonymously to the known recipient 3. Giving charity publicly to the unknown recipient 4. Giving charity publicly to the known recipient… Obviously, the idea is that the anonymousness and the sincerity of the contribution is the highest trait. "Bis Dat Qui Cito Dat" –"The one who gives quickly, gives twice", states the old Latin proverb. One of the basic ideas of Jewish prosociality is the custom of "anonymous charity" or "‫ "מתן בסתר‬in Hebrew. The great philosopher recognized the beneficial aspect of giving and tried to educate the people to contribute those who need it without thinking of 22

The Open University of Israel Faculty of Social Sciences BA Psychology Program Ψ 2007–12–24 [email protected]

personal interest. If Jewish tradition and heritage specifically underlines the importance of anonymous charity, why religious Jewish participants tend to be more "public" than the secular participants? Why already well-known (religious) Jewish millionaire stipulates his 20-million dollar contribution to the national library by naming it after him? Secular values of self-advertisement and the "celebrity halo" have not skipped the religious community. The "material world" that Madonna sings about demands not to "waste" our resources, but to invest them; not to give but to barter; not to donate but to sell. Sadly, the famous singer that enthusiastically draws the traditional ancient knowledge of Cabbala forgets the simple but very important nuance of Judaism, while adopting African orphans "online" and declaring about her multi-million contribution to Africa via TV talk shows in prime time. However, wouldn't it be hypocritical if we ask her to stick to Jewish morale when more and more people among us consider a donation to be a part of advertisement budget? Apparently, simply being “religious” in itself does not correlate well with helping behaviour or compassion for those in need. The real paradox is not the extraordinary high levels of religious "public altruists", but the common belief in purity of religious people's intentions. The Nature of Altruism: Intentional "Greediness" or Evolutionary Survival Mechanism? The "impure" altruistic human behavior might be perceived as intentionally targeted towards future profit. However, such an assumption requires a rational perception of human nature. Therefore, the discussion about humans' awareness of the goals of their own prosocial behavior rooted in a philosophic dispute about the rationality of a human mind. John Locke, an important British philosopher, defines a man as "industrious and rational individual" who is able to "self-rule". The rationality, according to Locke, is the essence of humanity and ratio is the "appendix" that distinct between humans and animals. Major monotheistic religions underline the difference between divine law, whether it is Moses', Jesus' or Mohammed's, and the laws of nature, polarizing mind and instinct, the human and the bestial, the cerebral and the instinctive behavior. Thomas Hobbes, another great British philosopher, presents much more ambivalent relationship between rationality and emotionality – he claims, that emotional mechanisms effecting human tasks. Emotional behaviors are different from the rational ones but they are not in complete conflict. The famous "Homo Homini Lupus" (Man is a Wolf to Man), adopted by Hobbes from Roman philosopher Platus, symbolizes Hobbes' perception of 23

The Open University of Israel Faculty of Social Sciences BA Psychology Program Ψ 2007–12–24 [email protected]

human nature – egoistic and selfish, serving only its own interest, however not intentionally beneficial but rather "natural". When trying to apply Locke's rational and Hobbes' emotional-egoistic model of human nature to the perception of altruism, the subjectivity of the answer to the initial question of this chapter clarifies. If man is rational, he understands the reciprocal aspect of altruism, performs logical calculations of "investments", benefits of his prosociality and acts altruistically when it's "worth" it. If man is egoistic and selfish but less rational, prosocial behavior is just a genetic evolutionary mechanism of survival, coping with life and gaining well-being. The answer apparently is "in the eye of the beholder". "Evolution of Cooperation" – The Game Theory The classical Game Theory studies decisions made by humans under conditions of situational uncertainty. Games like "Prisoner's Dilemma" present an apparent conflict between morality and self-interest; the surprising fact is that certain level of cooperation between the players is essential for winning and contributes to self-interest. Purely egoistic approach is doomed to failure; flexibility is the preferred tactics for winning. The idea that certain levels of altruism are necessary for survival and success is proved mathematically by several scientists almost eighty years ago (Von Neumann, J. & Morgenstern, O., 1928). Allegedly conflictive with pure Darwinian framework that supposes competition for resources as a zero - sum game (one's benefit is necessarily somebody else's loss), CST and its logical predecessor, the Game Theory, present an approach that is coherent with the evolutionary mechanisms. Psychological Egoism The philosophical view that humans are always motivated by rational self-interest, even in what seems to be purely altruistic behavior is called "Psychological Egoism" (example of somebody holding such a view would be Aristotle or Thomas Hobbes). It claims that when sane people choose to help others, it is because of the personal benefits they obtain, or expect to obtain, directly or indirectly, from doing so. When being asked what the benefit of a soldier is when he is jumping on a grenade in order to save his comrades' lives, the supporter of the Psychological Egoism theory would respond, that it is soldier's way to avoid the pain caused by seeing other soldiers dying. Avoiding pain might be a reason to perform an altruistic act. In a broader way, avoiding negative reinforcements (such as public denunciation) is a possible cause for giving a seat to the elder woman in a bus. 24

The Open University of Israel Faculty of Social Sciences BA Psychology Program Ψ 2007–12–24 [email protected]

Herbert Simon and the Bounded Rationality Many economics models assume that people are "hyperrational" and would never do anything against their interests. Simon (1957) states, that people rather heuristic and not purely rational, they are behaving emotionally when the rational optimization is too complicated to calculate. Simon's hypothesis supported by both Daniel Kahneman (2003) and Ariel Rubinstein (1998), Israeli world-known economists, who claim that the pure rationality could not be considered as a human trait, it is rather "bounded" by the emotions. Is it Good to be good? "Many illnesses can be cured by one medicine of love and compassion", says Dalai Lama. The question whether it is good to be an altruist is occupying researchers from various fields lately. The following studies present unambiguous results: -

In the recent research that examined the effects of giving and receiving (Brooks, A.J.,

Reece, K., Schwartz, G.E., Nangle, G.), receivers experienced a significantly greater decrease in emotional state than givers as a result of life difficulties. -

Volunteering correlates positively to good well-being and self-reported health

(Piliavin J.A, 2005). -

About 95% of altruistic volunteers who helped 9/11 tragedy victims reported better

health status compared to others of the same age (Luks, A., 2002). Helping proved effective decreasing diseases such as obesity, sleeplessness, acid stomach, headaches and backaches, depression, colds and flu, arthritis, asthma and even cancer and coronary artery decease. Seems, that acts of generosity, whether they performed with pure or impure intentions, improve our well-being. The circular logic of altruism (if a person willingly performs an act, he probably derives personal enjoyment from it, therefore people only perform acts that give them personal enjoyment) will probably continue occupying philosophers. However, regardless of its underlying motives, seems that an altruistic act improves the well-being of both the giver and the receiver. Drawbacks and "weak points" of the current study 1. Since no manipulation of public and private conditions was performed in the current study, the data according the behavioral patterns of the participants are based on selfreports, which might introduce self-presentational biases

25

The Open University of Israel Faculty of Social Sciences BA Psychology Program Ψ 2007–12–24 [email protected]

2. The "Religiosity" variable has a relatively low variance among the participants. Only two participants were highly religious (gained scores of 41 and 38 in Religiosity test ); according to RCI-10 religiosity questionnaire authors, scores of 38 and above allow such a classification. Since my "social circle" includes mostly secular and moderately religious people only, it decreases the internal heterogeneity of the sample. Higher religiosity level variance in future researches would improve the validity of the research by decreasing the possibility of random variance between the participants. Including ultra-orthodox Jews in future research might strengthen the mediation of conformity variable between religiosity and prosociality as a result of religious conformity. 3. Various "intervening" variables could have been mediating the correlations. Conformity levels depend on one's geographic origin – while some Eastern societies consider individualism as a serious flaw, in contrary, conformity is associated with weak character, inability to lead and perform in the Western society. The Epilogue – Insights on Altruism in the new millennia and Suggestions for Future Research The research data was collected via self-report questionnaires and therefore the presupposition of congruence between declared opinions and actual tendencies was necessary in order to conclude from the results. However, the logical suggestion would be that at least some of the participants claimed to be more altruistic than they actually are, since it is a valuable social trait, respected and cherished by humankind…Is it indeed? Since the participants (mostly young people) demonstrated a very low tendency towards "pure" altruism while answering a questionnaire, their probable predisposition towards altruistic behavior might be even lower than they stated. What we observe might be a devaluation of "old" social norms that the modern Israeli society is experiencing nowadays: the weakening of family values followed by high divorce rate, the decrease of youngsters' motivation to volunteer to army service, the increasing gap between numbers of people in need and welfare expenditures of the national budget… Future research concerning the "modernity" and the "sex-appeal" of altruistic values is necessary in order to understand the results of the current study properly. If altruism is considered as archaic, obsolete and unnecessary trait, the results might present an authentic picture of young people's views and Costly-Signaling Theory's view of prosociality might be revaluated. 26

The Open University of Israel Faculty of Social Sciences BA Psychology Program Ψ 2007–12–24 [email protected]

Another unresolved question is the validity of the evolutionary view of humans. Whether the data provided by the participants was an actual capture of their personal traits and opinions or just a bunch of "wannabe" qualities, the evolutionary approach supported by CST sees the humans as "impure" altruists. The question is, whether the evolutionary-biological point of view is still applicable for inhabitants of the western society. The strength of interpersonal connections is weakening in some of the western countries, more and more people no longer define themselves as group participants, the symbiotic existence, so necessary in the past, is not a necessity anymore. Online learning, shopping, gaming and even dating allows humans to sustain more or less "normal" existence without leaving their homes. The modern man sees, hears and runs much worse than his ancient predecessor because he does not need to survive in a jungle anymore; his peer's importance in his life is practically meaningless. Probably, the cooperation between Australian aborigines, whether it is reciprocal or purehearted, differs drastically from the cooperation between North-American software engineers…We loose our connection with the nature with every step of modernization. Can we still call ourselves "social animals"? The dimensions of the "unsocialization" define the necessity or the "unnecesstiy" of interaction in general and prosocial behavior in particular. Investigating the correlation between the modernization and prosociality might present a gloomy picture of the future.

27

The Open University of Israel Faculty of Social Sciences BA Psychology Program Ψ 2007–12–24 [email protected]

References Abdon, N. (1997). Religiosity and Morality in the Bureaucracy: Defining the Role of Religion in Promoting Public Service. In Press. Ainsworth, M. D. S., Bell, S. M., & Stayton, D. (1974). Infant-mother attachment and social development. In M. P. Richards (Ed.), The introduction of the child into a social world (pp. 99-135). London: Cambridge University Press. Alcorta, C.S., Sosis, R. Adaptive militants and martyrs: what evolutionary theories of Religion tell us about terrorism? For Darwinian Security: Perspectives from Ecology and Evolution, Eds. Rafe Sagarin & Terrence Taylor, University of California Press. Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs, 70 (Whole no. 416). Bandura, A. (1978a). Reflections on self-efficacy. Advances in Behavioral Research and Therapy, 1, pp. 237-269. Ben-Shlomo, S., Findler, L., & Taubman-Ben-Ari, O. (2005). Self-esteem and willingness to help people with and without disabilities among young ultra-orthodox Jewish women. Journal of Religion, Disability and Health, Vol.9 (1), pp. 67-82. Benzioni, K.A., Bazerman, M.H. & Tenbrunsel, A.E. (1996). Egocentric interpretations of fairness in asymmetric, environmental social dilemmas: explaining harvesting behavior and the role of communication. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67 (2), pp. 111-126. Berry, J.W., Berry, T., Bursley, K.H., Height, T.L., McCullough, O'Connor, L., M., Schmidt, M., Ripley, J., Wade, N.J., & Worthington. E.L. (2003). The Religious Commitment Inventory – 10; Development, Refinement and Validation of a Brief Scale for Research and Counseling. Journal of Counseling Psychology Vol. 50, No.1, 84-96.

28

The Open University of Israel Faculty of Social Sciences BA Psychology Program Ψ 2007–12–24 [email protected]

Bloom, L.M., & Clark III, R.D. (1976). The Cost-Reward model of helping behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 6 (1), pp. 76–84. Bonanno, G.A., Field, N.P., Kovacevic, A., & Kaltman, S. (2002). Self-enhancement as a buffer against extreme adversity: Civil war in Bosnia and traumatic loss in United States. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, pp. 184-196. Boone, J.L. (2000). Status Signaling, Social Power, and Lineage Survival. In Hierarchies in Action: Qui Bono? Edited by Michael Diehl. Carbondale, Ill.: Center for Archeological Studies. Bowlby, J. [1969] (1999). Attachment, 2nd edition, Attachment and Loss (vol. 1), New York: Basic Books. Gintis, H., Bowles, S., & Smith, E. (2001). Costly signaling and cooperation. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 213, pp. 103-119. Bulbulia, J. (2004). Religious Costs and Adaptations that Signal Altruistic Intention. Evolution and Cognition, Vol. 10, No.1, pp. 19-42. Carlo, G., Christiansen, S., Hausmann, A., & Randall, B.A. (2003). Sociocognitive and Behavioral Correlates of a Measure of Prosocial Tendencies. Journal of Early Adolescence, 23:1, pp. 107-134. Carlo, G., Edwards, C.P., Kumru, A. (2004). Summary of Relational, Culture, Cognitive and Affective Predictors of Prosocial Behavior. Turk Psikoloji Dergisi , 19(54), pp. 127-128. Carlo, G., Laible, D.J., & Roesch, S.C. (2004). Pathways to self-esteem in late adolescence: the role of parent and peer attachment, empathy, and social behaviors. Journal of Adolescence, Issue 6, December 2004, pp. 703-716.

29

The Open University of Israel Faculty of Social Sciences BA Psychology Program Ψ 2007–12–24 [email protected]

Castano, E., Yzerbyt, V., Paladino, M-P., & Sacchi, S. (2002). I belong therefore I exist: Ingroup identification, ingroup entitativity, and ingroup bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, pp. 135-143. Christopher, E. (2006). The empathy-altruist hypothesis in real world. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Montreal Convention Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, Aug 11, 2006 Cialdini, R.B., & Goldstein, N.J. (2004). Social influence: compliance and conformity. Annual Psychological Review, 55, pp. 591-621. Clark, R. (2004). Religiousness, Spirituality, and IQ: Are They Linked? Explorations : An Undergraduate Research Journal, 2004, pp. 35-46. Cohen, G.L. (2003). Party over policy: The dominating impact of group influence on political beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, pp. 808-822. Coultas, J.C. (2004). When in Rome… An evolutionary perspective on Conformity. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, Vol. 7(4), pp. 317-331. Crocker, J., Park, L.E. (2004).The costly pursuit of self-esteem. Psychological Bulletin 204, Vol.130, No.3, pp. 392-414. Dernelle, R., Pichon, I., Saroglou, V., Trompette, L., Verschueren, M. (2005). Prosocial behavior and religion: New Evidence based on Projective Measures and Peer Ratings. Journal for the scientific study of religion, 44(3), pp. 323-348. Dewitte, C., & Millet, K. (2007). Altruistic behavior as a costly signal of general intelligence. In press. Dutton, K. A., & Brown, J. D. (1997). Global self-esteem and specific self-views as determinants of peopleís reactions to success and failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, pp. 139-148. 30

The Open University of Israel Faculty of Social Sciences BA Psychology Program Ψ 2007–12–24 [email protected]

Eisenberg, N. (1995) Review of Personality and Social Development. Volume 15: Social Development: Thousand Oaks Sage. Erikson, E.H. (1959). Identity and the life cycle. Psychological Issues, 1(1). New York: International Universities Press. Erkolahti, R.K., Saarijarvi, S., Ilonen, T., & Hagman, H. (2002). Self image of anorexic and bulimic female adolescents. Nord J Psychiatry, 56, pp. 447-450. Feather, N.T. (1991). Human values, global self-esteem and belief in a just world. Journal of Personality 59 (1), pp. 83-107. Fehr, E. (2004). Human behaviour: Don't lose your reputation. Nature 432, pp. 449-450. Feinstein, L. (2000). The relative economic importance of academic, psychological and behavioral attributes developed in childhood. Unpublished paper, Centre for Economic Performance, London School of Economics. Fischbacher, U., Gachter, S., & Fehr, E. (2001). Are people conditionally cooperative? Evidence from a public goods experiment. Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 71(3), pp. 397404. Festinger, L. (1954). A Theory of Social Comparison Processes. Human Relations, pp. 114140. Gabard, G.O., & Shapira, Y. (1994). A Reconsideration of Altruism From an Evolutionary and Psychodynamic Perspective. Ethics & Behavior, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 23-42. Garza, P.B., & Neuman, S. (2004). Analyzing religiosity within an economic framework: the case of Spanish Catholics. Review of Economics of the Household, Vol. 2 (1), pp. 5-22.

31

The Open University of Israel Faculty of Social Sciences BA Psychology Program Ψ 2007–12–24 [email protected]

Gaulin, S. J.C., & Schlegel, A. (1980). Paternal confidence and paternal investment: A crosscultural test of a sociobiological hypothesis. Ethology and Sociobiology, 1, pp. 301-309. Grafen A, (2006). Optimization of inclusive fitness. Journal of theoretical Biology, 238, pp. 541-563. Grafen, A. (2007). Detecting kin selection at work using inclusive fitness. Proceedings of the Royal Society (London) B 274, pp. 713-719. Hagen, E.H., Hess, N.H. (2006). Psychological adaptations for assessing gossip veracity. Human Nature, Vol.17, No.3, pp. 337-354. Hansson, R.O., Slade. K.M. Altruism toward a deviant in city and small town. Journal of applied social psychology, 7(3), pp. 272-279. Higgins, E.T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: a theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review, Vol. 94 (3), pp. 319-340. Hill, P. C., Pargament, K. I., Swyers, J. P., Gorsuch, R. L., McCullough, M. E., Hood, R. W., & Baumeister, R. F. (1998). Definitions of religion and spirituality. In D. B. Larson, J. P. Swyers, & M. E. McCullough (Eds.), Scientific research on spirituality and health: A consensus report (pp. 14 –30). Baltimore: National Institute for Healthcare Research. Holder, A. (1995). Anna Freud's contribution to the psychoanalytic theory of development. Journal of Child Psychotherapy, 21(3), pp. 326-346. Hassid, J., Watson, B.C., Wrzesniewski, J. (2007). The Benefits of Cost: Politics and Signaling Theory. Paper presented at the Political Science Graduate Student Conference in University of California, Berkeley, May 2, 2007 Heine, S.J., Lehman, D.R., Marcus, H.R., & Kitayama, S. (1999). Is there a universal need for positive self-regard? Psychological Review, 106, pp. 766-794.

32

The Open University of Israel Faculty of Social Sciences BA Psychology Program Ψ 2007–12–24 [email protected]

James, W. (1890). Principles of psychology. New York: Henry Holt. Kohlberg, L. (1958). The Development of Modes of Thinking and Choices in Years 10 to 16. Ph. D. dissertation, University of Chicago. Kohlberg, L. (1973). The Claim to Moral Adequacy of a Highest Stage of Moral Judgment. Journal of Philosophy 70, pp. 630-646. Kruger, D. J. (2003). Evolution and Altruism: Combining Psychological Mediators with Naturally Selected Tendencies. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24, pp. 118-125. Lee, Y-T., Norasakkunkit, V, Liu, Li, Zhang, J, & M. Zhou (2005). Taoist altruism and wateristic personality: East and West. Paper presented at the 34th Annual Conference of the Society for the Cross-Cultural Research, February 23-27, Santa Fe, New Mexico. Lerner, J.S., & Taylor, S.E. (2003). Portrait of self-enhancer: well adjusted and well liked or maladjusted and friendless? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 84 (1), pp. 165-176. Lindbeck, A., & Nyberg, S. (2006). Raising children to work hard: altruism, work norms and social insurance. Forthcoming in Quarterly Journal of Economics, 4, November 2006. Locke, J. 1975 (1689). An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Logan, M.H., Qirko, H.N. (1998). An evolutionary perspective on maladaptive traits and cultural conformity. American Journal of Human Biology, Vol. 8 (5), pp. 615-629. Maimonides (Rambam), Mishneh Torah, 1:14 Mayer, J.D., Caruso, D.R., & Salovey, P. (1999). Emotional intelligence meets traditional standards for an intelligence. Unpublished Manuscript. 33

The Open University of Israel Faculty of Social Sciences BA Psychology Program Ψ 2007–12–24 [email protected]

Marx, K., The Capital, Vol. I, Part IV: Production of Relative Surplus Value, Chapter XII: The Concept of Relative Surplus Value, Penguin Classics. McAndrew, F.T., (2002). New evolutionary perspectives on altruism: Multilevel–Selection and Costly-Signaling Theories. Current Directions In Psychological Science, Vol.11 (2), pp. 79-82. Mehrabian, A. (2005). Manual for the Conformity Scale. Retrieved from http://www.kaaj.com/psych/scales/conform.html Milgram, S. (1977). The Individual in a Social World: Essays and Experiments. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Pub.Co. Miller, Walter. (1958). Lower Class Culture as a Generating Milieu of Gang Delinquency. Journal of Social Issues. Vol. 14, pp. 5-20. Neiman, F.D. (1998). Conspicuous consumption as wasteful advertising: a Darwinian perspective on spatial patterns in Classic Maya terminal monument dates. In: Rediscovering Darwin: evolutionary theory and archeological explanation (Barton CM, Clark GA, eds), Archeological papers of the American Anthropological Association, no. 7. Washington, DC: American Anthropological Association; pp. 267–290. Nollen, L.N., Catley, D., Davies, G., Hall, M., & Ahluwalia, J.S. (2004). Religiosity, social support, and smoking cessation among urban African American smokers. Addictive Behaviors, Vol. 30 (6), pp. 1225-1229. Orbell, J.M., (1992). Religion, Context, and Constraint toward Strangers. Rationality and Society, 4, pp. 291-307. Parks, C.D., & Vu, A.D. (1994). Social dilemma behavior of individuals from highly individualist and collectivist cultures. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 38, No. 4 , pp. 708-718. Pfeuffer, W. (2006). Religion as a seed crystal for altruistic cooperation. In Press. 34

The Open University of Israel Faculty of Social Sciences BA Psychology Program Ψ 2007–12–24 [email protected]

Piaget, J. (1977). The Essential Piaget ed. by Howard E. Gruber and J. Jacques Voneche Gruber, New York: Basic Books. Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univercity Press. Rosenberg, M., & McCullough, B.C. (1981). Mattering: Inferred significance and mental health among adolescents. In R.G. Simmons (Ed.) Research in Community and Mental Health: A Research Annual (pp. 163-82). New York: JAI Press, Inc. Rousseau, J.J. The Social Contract, Book I, Chapter 1: The subject of Book I. Saroglou, V. (2006). Religion's Role in Prosocial Behavior: Myth or Reality? Psychology of Religion Newsteller, Vol.31, No.2, pp. 1-8. Sears, R. R., Maccoby, E. E., & Levin, H. (1957). Patterns of Childrearing. Evanston, III: Row, Peterson, and Co. Shackelford, T.K. (2001). Self-esteem in marriage. Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 30, pp. 371-390. Skinner, B. F. (1950). Are theories of learning necessary? Psychological Review, 57, pp. 193-216. Smith, J.M., & Harper, D. (2003). Animal Signals. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p.15. Urdan, T., & Midgley, C. (2001). Academic self-handicapping: What we know, what more there is to learn. Educational Psychology Review, 13, pp. 115-138. Van Vugt, M. (2005). Evolutionary origins of leadership and followership. Unpublished manuscript: University of Kent.

35

The Open University of Israel Faculty of Social Sciences BA Psychology Program Ψ 2007–12–24 [email protected]

Van Zyl, J.D., Cronje E.M., & Payze, C. (2006). Low self-esteem of psychotherapy patients: a qualitative inquiry. The Qualitative Report Volume, Vol. 11 (1), pp. 182-208. Von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1947. Wagener, L.M. (1998). Children’s understanding of self, relationship, and God: Implications for clinical practice. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 17, pp. 66–76. Worthington, E. L., Jr. (1988). Understanding the values of religious clients: A model and its application to counseling. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 35, pp. 166–174. Wright, R. (1995). The Moral Animal: Why We Are the Way We Are: The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology. Vintage. Young-Hyman, D., Schlundt, D.G., Herman-Wenderoth, L., & Bozylinski, K. (2003). Obesity, appearance and psychosocial adaptation in young American children. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, Vol. 28 (7), pp. 463-572. Zahavi, A. (1975). Mate selection - a selection for a handicap. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 53, pp. 205-214. Zahavi, A. (1977). The cost of honesty (Further remarks on the handicap principle). Journal of Theoretical Biology, 67, pp. 603-605. Zahavi, A. and Zahavi, A. (1997). The handicap principle: a missing piece of Darwin's puzzle. Oxford University Press. Oxford.

36

‫‪The Open University of Israel‬‬ ‫‪Faculty of Social Sciences‬‬ ‫‪BA Psychology Program Ψ‬‬ ‫‪2007–12–24‬‬ ‫‪[email protected]‬‬

‫‪Appendixes‬‬

‫‪Appendix I: The Religious Commitment Inventory (RCI-10) 10-item self-identification‬‬ ‫‪scale‬‬ ‫אנא בחרו באפשרות אחת בלבד מן המוצעות‪ ,‬שמתארת את עמדתכם\עמדתכן בצורה המדויקת ביותר כלפי כל‬ ‫טענה‪ .‬סמנו ‪ V‬במשבצת המתאימה‪:‬‬ ‫כלל לא נכון‬

‫נכון במידה‬

‫נכון במידה‬

‫נכון במידה‬

‫מועטה‬

‫בינונית‬

‫רבה‬

‫נכון לחלוטין‬

‫אמונותיי הדתיות מהוות בסיס לגישתי‬ ‫לחיים‬ ‫אני משתדל\ת להקדיש זמן לשיפור הבנת‬ ‫אמונתי הדתית‬ ‫חשוב לי להקדיש זמן למחשבות והרהורים‬ ‫בנושאי הדת‬ ‫אמונותיי הדתיות משפיעות על כל מעשי‬ ‫חיי‬ ‫הדת חשובה לי כי היא נותנת תשובות‬ ‫לשאלות על משמעות החיים‬ ‫אני מרבה לקרוא ספרים וירחונים בנושאי‬ ‫הדת‬ ‫אני נהנה\נהנית להשתתף בפעילות‬ ‫חברתית של ארגון דתי‬ ‫אני נהנה\נהנית מבילוי עם אלה שחולקים‬ ‫את אמונתי הדתית‬ ‫אני מתעניין\מתעניינת בקבוצה הדתית‬ ‫שלי ומשתתף\משתתפת בהחלטותיה‬ ‫אני תורם\תורמת כסף לארגון הדתי בו אני‬ ‫תומך‬

‫‪.‬‬

‫‪37‬‬

‫‪The Open University of Israel‬‬ ‫‪Faculty of Social Sciences‬‬ ‫‪BA Psychology Program Ψ‬‬ ‫‪2007–12–24‬‬ ‫‪[email protected]‬‬

‫‪Appendix II: Mehrabian's 11-item conformity scale‬‬ ‫אנא השתמשו באחת מהאפשרויות הבאות כדי להעריך את מידת הסכמתכם או אי‪-‬הסכמתכם עם הטענות המוצעות‪.‬‬ ‫רשמו את אחד המספרים בין ‪ +4‬לבין ‪ -4‬במשבצת הריקה משמאל לטענה‪ .‬נסו להתייחס לכל טענה בצורה כללית‪,‬‬ ‫כלומר להביא את עמדתכם בנושא הרחב ולא איך שהייתם מתנהגים במצב מסוים או איך שהייתם מקווים‬ ‫שתתנהגו‪:‬‬ ‫‪+4‬‬

‫מסכים\מסכימה במידה מוחלטת‬

‫‪+3‬‬

‫מסכים\מסכימה במידה רבה‬

‫‪+2‬‬

‫מסכים\מסכימה במידה מסוימת‬

‫‪+1‬‬

‫מסכים\מסכימה במידה מועטה‬

‫‪0‬‬

‫אין לי דעה בנושא‬

‫‪-1‬‬

‫לא מסכים\מסכימה במידה מועטה‬

‫‪-2‬‬

‫לא מסכים\מסכימה במידה מסוימת‬

‫‪-3‬‬

‫לא מסכים\מסכימה במידה רבה‬

‫‪-4‬‬

‫לא מסכים\מסכימה במידה מוחלטת‬

‫אני בדרך כלל מסתמך\מסתמכת על עצות הזולת ונוהג\נוהגת על פיהם‬ ‫אני אהיה האחרון\האחרונה שישנה את עמדתי בנושא שנוי במחלוקת לאחר ויכוח‬ ‫ברוב המקרים אעדיף לוותר ‪,‬להמשיך הלאה ו"לשמור על השלום"‪ ,‬ולא להיאבק על דרכי‬ ‫אני נצמד\נצמדת אל מסורת משפחתית בנושא תמיכה במפלגה פוליטית‬ ‫חברי הם לרוב אלה שמחליטים מה אנחנו נעשה יחד‬ ‫אדם כריזמטי הנואם ברהיטות יכול בקלות להשפיע עלי ולשנות את עמדותיי‬ ‫אני יותר עצמאי\עצמאית בדרכיי התנהגותי מאשר מתאים\מתאימה את עצמי להתנהגות הזולת‬ ‫אם מישהו\מישהי נשמע\נשמעת מאוד משכנע‪/‬ת‪ ,‬אני נוטה לשנות את דעתי בעקבותיו\בעקבותיה‬ ‫אני לא מוותר\מוותרת בקלות‬ ‫אני נוטה להסתמך על אחרים בקבלת החלטות חשובות‬ ‫אני מעדיף\מעדיפה למצוא את דרכי האישית בחיים‪ ,‬ולא להתאים את עצמי לדרכה של קבוצה‬

‫‪38‬‬

‫‪The Open University of Israel‬‬ ‫‪Faculty of Social Sciences‬‬ ‫‪BA Psychology Program Ψ‬‬ ‫‪2007–12–24‬‬ ‫‪[email protected]‬‬

‫‪Appendix III: Rosenberg's self-esteem 10-item scale‬‬ ‫אנא בחרו באפשרות אחת בלבד מן המוצעות‪ ,‬שמתארת את עמדתכם\עמדתכן בצורה המדויקת ביותר כלפי כל‬ ‫טענה‪ .‬סמנו ‪ V‬במשבצת המתאימה‪:‬‬ ‫מסכים\מסכימה‬

‫מסכים\מסכימה‬

‫אין לי עמדה‬

‫בהחלט‬

‫לא‬

‫לא‬

‫מסכים\מסכימה‬

‫מסכים\מסכימה‬ ‫בהחלט‬

‫לדעתי אני אדם ראוי‬ ‫ובעל ערך לפחות כמו‬ ‫האחרים‬ ‫לדעתי יש לי מספר‬ ‫תכונות חיוביות‬ ‫בסך הכול אני‬ ‫מרגיש\מרגישה שאני‬ ‫כשלון‬ ‫אני מסוגל\מסוגלת לבצע‬ ‫משימות טוב כמו אנשים‬ ‫אחרים‬ ‫אני מרגיש\מרגישה שאין‬ ‫לי כל כך במה להתגאות‬ ‫אני נוקט\נוקטת בגישה‬ ‫חיובית כלפי עצמי‬ ‫בסך הכול‪ ,‬אני מרוצה‬ ‫מעצמי‬ ‫אני מרגיש\מרגישה‬ ‫חסר\חסרת ערך לעיתים‬ ‫הלוואי והיה לי יותר‬ ‫הערכה לעצמי‬ ‫לעתים אני חש\חשה‬ ‫שאיני טוב\טובה כלל‬ ‫וכלל‬

‫‪39‬‬

‫‪The Open University of Israel‬‬ ‫‪Faculty of Social Sciences‬‬ ‫‪BA Psychology Program Ψ‬‬ ‫‪2007–12–24‬‬ ‫‪[email protected]‬‬

‫‪Appendix IV: The Prosocial Tendencies Measured – Revised (PTM-R) 23-item scale‬‬

‫אנא בחרו באפשרות אחת בלבד מבין המוצעות‪ ,‬שמתארת אותכם בצורה המדייקת ביותר‪.‬‬ ‫סמנו ‪ V‬במשבצת המתאימה‪:‬‬ ‫מתאר‬

‫מתאר‬

‫מתאר‬

‫מתאר‬

‫לא מתאר‬

‫אותי‬

‫אותי טוב‬

‫אותי‬

‫אותי‬

‫אותי כלל‬

‫במידה‬

‫במקצת‬

‫וכלל‬

‫מצוין‬

‫מסוימת‬ ‫אני עוזר\עוזרת לאחרים כאשר אנשים מסתכלים עלי‬ ‫ארגיש טוב אם אוכל לנחם אדם עצוב מאוד‬ ‫כאשר ישנם אנשים מסביבי‪ ,‬קל לי יותר לעזור למי שזקוק‬ ‫לדעתי‪ ,‬אחד הדברים הטובים בלעזור לאחרים זה שזה מציג‬ ‫אותי באור חיובי‬ ‫אני מפיק\מפיקה הכי הרבה מעזרה לאחרים‪ ,‬כאשר זה נעשה‬ ‫לעיני אנשים‬ ‫אני נוטה לעזור לאנשים שנמצאים בצרה או במשבר רציני‬ ‫כאשר אנשים מבקשים ממני עזרה‪ ,‬אינני מתלבט\מתלבטת‬ ‫לעולם‬ ‫אני מעדיף\מעדיפה לתרום כסף בסתר‬ ‫אני נוטה לעזור לאנשים שנפגעו בצורה קשה‬ ‫אני מאמין\מאמינה‪ ,‬שצריך לתרום כסף או רכוש כאשר יש לי‬ ‫תגמול לאחר המעשה‬ ‫אני נוטה לעזור לאנשים בצרה כך‪ ,‬שלא ידעו מי עזר להם‬ ‫אני נוטה לעזור לאנשים הנמצאים במצב רגשי במיוחד‬ ‫כאשר אני עוזר\עוזרת והאחרים מסתכלים‪ ,‬אני‬ ‫מצליח\מצליחה בצורה הכי טובה‬ ‫קל לי לעזור לאנשים שנמצאים במצב רע‬ ‫רוב הזמן אני עוזר\עוזרת לאנשים שלא יודעים שאני הוא\היא‬ ‫זה\זו שעוזר\עוזרת להם‬ ‫לדעתי‪ ,‬מגיע לי יותר על השקעת זמן ואנרגיה בעזרה לאחרים‬

‫‪40‬‬

‫‪The Open University of Israel‬‬ ‫‪Faculty of Social Sciences‬‬ ‫‪BA Psychology Program Ψ‬‬ ‫‪2007–12–24‬‬ ‫‪[email protected]‬‬

‫אני מגיב\מגיבה לבקשת עזרה בצורה המיטבית‪ ,‬כאשר‬ ‫הסיטואציה טעונה רגשית‬ ‫אני אף פעם לא מתמהמה להגיש עזרה לעזור כאשר מבקשים‬ ‫ממני‬ ‫לדעתי‪ ,‬עזרה בסתר הוא המצב הטוב ביותר‬ ‫אחד הדברים הטובים בעבודה התנדבותית הוא‪ ,‬שזה נראה‬ ‫טוב בקורות החיים שלי‬ ‫מצבים אמוציונאליים גורמים לי לרצות לעזור לאדם בצרה‬ ‫אני תורם\תורמת מבלי שאחרים יודעים כי זה עושה לי טוב‬ ‫אני חושב\חושבת‪ ,‬שאם עזרתי למישהו‪ ,‬הוא חייב לעזור לי‬ ‫בעתיד‬

‫‪41‬‬

The Open University of Israel Faculty of Social Sciences BA Psychology Program Ψ 2007–12–24 [email protected]

Acknowledgements I would like to express my sincere gratitude to: ™ Dr, Gal Gorodeisky-Harpaz, the tutor of the current research ™ Gustavo Carlo, Professor of Psychology at University of Nebraska-Lincoln for allowing me to use the Prosocial Tendencies Measured – Revised (PTM-R) scale and a great attitude towards my research ™ Everett L. Worthington Jr., Professor of Psychology at Virginia Commonwealth University for allowing me to use the Religious Commitment Inventory -10 questionnaire ™ Albert Mehrabian, Professor Emeritus of Psychology at University of California in Los Angeles for allowing me to use the Conformity scale ™ Dr. Florence Rosenberg, Professor Morris Rosenberg's wife, for giving me the permission to use the Self-Esteem scale. Doctor Morris Rosenberg was professor of Sociology at the University of Maryland from 1975 until 1992.

"Sociobiologists have broadened their range of selective stories by invoking concepts of inclusive fitness and kin selection to solve the vexatious problem of altruism – previously the greatest stumbling block to a Darwinian theory of social behavior. Sociobiology represents an extension of basic Darwinism to a realm where it should apply" - Stephen Jay Gould, Evolutionary Biologist

42