A Cross-cultural Study on Prosocial Behavior

This paper aimed to see how prosocial behavior affects ingroup and outgroup members, focusing on altruism, across different cultures. We think that in individualistic cultures, people will show the same level of altruism whether the beneficiaries are related to them or not. But in collectivistic cultures, we predict people will be more altruistic towards their relatives and less towards non-relatives. We also discuss the practical and theoretical implications of these expected findings in this paper.

Keywords: Cross-Cultural Study, Altruism, Group Membership, Individualism, Collectivism, Hofstede, Prosocial Behavior

Introduction

It’s better to give than to receive, right? Humans are super social beings and sometimes even harm themselves to help others. Interestingly, many studies show that helping others can actually be good for our health. For example, Post (2005) said that altruistic behaviors are linked to better health, mental well-being, and even longer life. In the 1980s, there was this thing called 'The Mother Teresa Effect.' People who watched a short film of Mother Teresa at an orphanage had better immune systems afterward (McClelland & Kirshnit, 1988). But, most research doesn’t really look at the link between prosocial behavior and Hofstede’s cultural dimensions of individualism and collectivism. The studies that do exist are mostly inconsistent and indirect.

Literature Review & Hypotheses

Prosocial Behavior & Altruism

Altruism is part of a bigger category called Prosocial Behavior, which society generally sees as good for others and the political system (Wright, 2015). This includes actions meant to help others. But, there’s a difference between just helping and being altruistic. Helping is about the result, while altruism is about the motivation behind the action. Classic psychology says internal motivation is key to altruistic helping (Brown & Gaertner, 2008).

Altruism is a tricky and complex thing in human behavior. Different fields define it in different ways. Economists like Fischbacher and Fehr (2003) say it involves costly acts that benefit others financially. Biologists like Clavien and Chapuisat (2012) talk about it in terms of behaviors that lower personal reproduction. So, it’s important to first set a definition in psychology before diving deeper.

According to the International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (Wright, 2015), altruism is "behavior intended to benefit another, even if it risks the welfare of the actor" (Monroe, 1996). This definition helps us understand altruism better. First, altruism involves action, not just good intentions. Second, the action aims to achieve a goal. Third, it should raise another person's welfare, even if it’s unintended. Fourth, motivations matter more than consequences. So, an altruistic act with bad outcomes is still altruistic. Fifth, it might lower the actor's welfare. Batson (2014) says altruism doesn’t always mean sacrificing oneself but is inherently self-sacrificial. Lastly, actors shouldn’t expect rewards for altruistic acts.

There’s a lack of research on the link between altruism and culture in psychology. Most studies look at factors like age (Blakey, Mason, Cristea, McGuigan & Messer, 2019) and physical attractiveness (Farrelly, 2017). So, we still need to understand how altruism varies among different cultures.

Culture

Hofstede (2001) defines individualism and collectivism based on social norms. Individualism means loose ties between people, where everyone looks after themselves and their immediate family. Collectivism means strong, cohesive in-groups that protect individuals for their whole lives in exchange for loyalty. So, individualistic cultures value personal goals, while collectivistic cultures prioritize group goals (Triandis, 1989). This means motivations for individual gains are stronger in individualistic cultures, while collectivistic cultures motivate individuals to achieve group advantages through cooperation.

This research uses the individualism-collectivism construct to define cultural ideology and looks at cultural orientation through self-construal, as suggested by Markus and Kitayama (1991). They proposed two types of self-construal: independent and interdependent.

Independent self-construal means seeing oneself as autonomous and consistent across different contexts. Internal attributes matter more than societal standards. This view is common in North American cultures.

Interdependent self-construal means seeing oneself as connected to others and social contexts. Individuals see themselves as part of a social relationship, and their behaviors are influenced by others in that relationship. This view is common in East Asian cultures.

Because of these different self-construals, culture affects cognition, emotion, and motivation in varying ways (Markus & Kitayama, 2001).

Altruism and Culture

Some traits of collectivistic cultures suggest that people in these societies might show more altruism than those in individualistic cultures.

First, individualistic societies have loose ties between people, while collectivistic societies have strong, cohesive in-groups. This means that people in individualistic cultures are more focused on their own well-being, while those in collectivistic cultures are more focused on group goals. This idea is supported by a study by Mullen and Skitka (2009), which found that people from collectivistic societies are more familiar with helping others, while those from individualistic societies help less often. This suggests that people from collectivistic cultures might show more altruism than those from individualistic cultures.

Second, the willingness to help might depend on how much sympathy a person feels, and this can vary based on cultural orientation. Eisenberg and Miller define sympathy as “an emotional response stemming from another’s emotional state or condition that is not identical to the other’s emotion, but consists of feelings of sorrow or concern for another” (Strayer, 1990). They distinguish between altruistically motivated helping and egoistically motivated helping. Altruists aim to reduce another’s distress, even at a cost to themselves, while egoists aim to reduce their own distress, which can be achieved by escaping rather than helping. The situations that elicit sympathy can vary based on personality, life experience, and cultural context. Mullen and Skitka (2009) found that sympathy can determine the willingness to help, and this can vary culturally. But, regardless of culture, people are more likely to help when they feel sympathy.

Based on the literature on Hofstede’s individualism-collectivism dimension and altruism, we formulated the following hypotheses:

H1A: In individualistic cultures, altruistic behavior will be the same whether beneficiaries are related or not.

H1B: In collectivistic cultures, altruistic behavior will be lower if beneficiaries are unrelated and higher if they are related.

Expected Results

We expect a two-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) to show a significant main effect of culture. Japanese participants will report higher levels of apathy than American participants. There will also be a significant main effect of self-efficacy, with lower levels of apathy reported by participants in high self-efficacy conditions. A significant interaction effect of culture and self-efficacy is also expected, showing that self-efficacy moderates apathy. So, people in individualistic cultures will show no difference in altruistic behaviors between in-groups and out-groups, while people in collectivistic cultures will show more altruism towards people related to them.

Discussion

This study aimed to explore the link between culture and altruism and directly assess Hofstede’s cultural dimensions of individualism-collectivism in relation to prosocial behavior. The expected results support the two hypotheses. We conclude that the cultural dimension of individualism-collectivism is associated with levels of prosocial behavior, particularly altruism. It’s suggested that the level of sympathy one has for another, regardless of whether the beneficiary is a stranger or from a different cultural context, might help explain this cultural difference in prosocial behavior.

The results have significant theoretical and practical implications. First, this study helps fill the research gap on altruism. Second, using the well-studied cultural value of individualism-collectivism, this study can be replicated to examine apathy levels in other individualistic and collectivistic cultures. Lastly, altruism is proposed to be sympathetic rather than egoistic. So, this study offers new insights into the interaction between culture and prosocial behavior, particularly altruism, and extends the potential for other prosocial behaviors.

One limitation of this study is its experimental design in a controlled setting. A lab experiment might eliminate many real-life effects. Future research could address generalizability concerns by using different manipulations of the same variables and assessing prosocial behavior in more realistic settings. A more complex research design could also provide more details on Hofstede’s cultural dimensions.