Hey Buddy, Could You Spare Some Change?

This topic submitted by Matt Connor, Eric Fox (connormm@muohio.edu, foxem@muohio.e) at 3:16 AM on 4/30/02. Additions were last made on Tuesday, April 30, 2002. Section: Myers.

Abstract

This paper expresses the results of a survey conducted to test the occurrence of altruism and/or reciprocal altruism in a semi-random population sample. We test the population with a task, which allows them either an altruistic or non-altruistic response. Following the response, the population is asked to fill out a survey which helps establish data allowing testing to establish relationships that exist between altruism, gender, and relationships, as well as determine whether the altruism in question is reciprocal or not. An inspiration/parallel to this study is the TIT FOR TAT computer program constructed by Anatol Rapoport. In essence, we theorized that since we had given the survey respondents no reason to distrust us, they would reward us through altruistic behavior. It was also hypothesized that, for those relationships that were best established – and thus well entrenched in altruistic behavior – the altruistic behavior that we could expect from the survey respondents would be greater than the amount of altruistic behavior we could expect from those respondents who did not have an existing relationship, or at least a strong relationship, with us. We also theorized that some relation might exist between the respondent’s gender and their willingness to be altruistic.

Introduction

Why are charities so prevalent? Why do people willing give money to beggars on the street? Why is being miserly seen as a bad quality in a society that emphasizes material possessions and wealth? It’s quite possible that social mores are constructed to place as much emphasis as possible on the concept of altruism (and by extension, reciprocal altruism). Altruism is a type of behavior that is usually considered to be selfless, like donating money to a charity or volunteering at a local hospice. In reality though, it may be that such altruism is motivated by genetic factors that are operating at a level we may never be aware of.
If Robert Wright is correct and the theories of evolutionary psychology or social biology hold any water, altruism may be a defense mechanism. If this is the case, altruism exists in sort of a karmic principle. If I am kind and altruistic towards everyone, I may reasonably be able to expect that everyone else is kind and altruistic towards me. In this case, no true altruism is possible, as every altruistic act is committe with the expectation that a similar altruistic act will benefit the first party at a later date.
The evolution of friendships could thus potentially be explained as a sustained series of altruistic interactions. Friends could simply have entered into an unspoken mutual agreement to help each other out as necessity directs. Most people consider their close friends to be those people that can be relied on for assistance, no matter what the situation. The moral and ethical rules governing friendship seem to transcend the moral and ethical rules that govern everyday social life. It is not socially acceptable to lie; yet how many people have lied to protect friends, even at the cost of their own life or reputation? And most people expect that a friend would be willing to do the same for them.
Yet this still does not explain the relatively altruistic attitude that most people have towards the rest of society. What makes people willing to help out a total stranger, when there is no return guaranteed? The short answer is that people expect the best of others. They expect that everyone else will react in the same manner, and that, unless reason has been given, no one will act in an unkind or harmful manner.
A good example of this is the Anatol Rapoport created computer program that ended up proving victorious in the struggle designed by Robert Axelrod to test strategies for the prisoner’s dilemma, TIT FOR TAT. The program was simple. Upon the first interaction with another program, cooperate with it. Upon each subsequent encounter with the program, react the way the other program had treated TIT FOR TAT on the prior encounter. This extraordinarily simple program easily outperformed all of the other programs and ended up with the least amount of jail time of any program participating in the competition.
It is quite possible that information like this is coded into every human being’s genetic sequence; a fundamental part of the genome encouraging cooperation and punishing deviant behavior with social privations and the potential for a loss of genetic success. Evolution dictates that any behavior that minimizes rather than maximizes the potential for reproduction will be weeded out; as such, an altruistic strategy could easily become dominant and prosperous.
If reproductive success does lie at the heart of all modern behaviors, it is quite possible that not all people have an impulse towards altruistic behavior. As is the case with many so many distinctions, men and women are the two factions that exist. Men, with their limited parental investment and their ability to reproduce with multiple partners at the same time, have little to gain by helping out the rivals. The more men there are, the more competition there is, and the less likely it becomes that the best mate will still be available for the individual. Women, on the other hand, are only able to reproduce with one partner at a time, and there is a significant amount of parental investment involved in reproduction. As such, women really do not need to compete with each other as blatantly as males do, and can help others out without worrying about how this will play out in terms of their reproductive success.
For our study, we believe that a relationship exists between how well the participant knows our tester (Eric Fox) and how willing they are to donate money to him. We also believe that there will be more women willing to donate money than there are men willing to donate. In essence, we believe that the results of the study will reflect what we believe to be the appropriate socio-biological stance on the matter.

Methods

The methods used for collecting data were quite simple. The tester would approach the subject, and ask if he could have a dollar. No explanation was given, and after the subject responded, either in the affirmative or the negative, he or she was asked if they would mind filling out a survey; and the dollar, if donated, was returned. The survey appears below:
Gender: M F

Did you give the person the money? Yes No I was going to, but no $$

How well did you know the person that asked?
Best Friend Good Friend Acquaintance I knew of them Total Stranger

What factors, if any did you consider in your decision? (check all that apply)
__ appearance of borrower __ trustiness of borrower
__ current state of wallet __ personal bias towards strangers
__ reason for borrowing (if given) __ other (please explain):
__ poise of borrower __ too much money asked for

Did you expect something in return for the borrowed money? Yes No

Why or why not?

How would you react to this person if you saw them again? (Check all that apply)
__ Oh man, I hope he doesn’t ask for money again.
__ If I’m in a crunch, he owes me one.
__ Hey, there’s that shady kid who asked for money for a “survey”
__ There goes a trustworthy individual.
__ What if someone else asks for money today?
__ What a handsome individual.
__ other (please explain):

Do you ever give to charity? Yes No

Why or why not? What do you get out of it?

Do you pay your taxes? Yes No

Besides the legal obligation, why do you pay your taxes (i.e. what do you expect in return)?
All in all, sixty such surveys were collected. We then decided that it was most important to attempt to locate any relationships that existed between the willingness of the subject to donate money and the subject’s gender, as well as willingness to donate and relationship to tester; lastly, we decided that, while not essential, it would be intriguing to attempt to see how the subject’s expectations about receiving something in exchange for the money related to their gender and their relationship to the tester.
We then analyzed the data with Statview to attempt to obtain the relevant p-values, though we were forced to create graphs using Excel. We believe that there may be some problems with the way our dataset was interpreted by Statview, as we were unable to obtain the p-values or create any graphs that worked properly, even after obtaining assistance from a peer tutor wise in the ways of Statview. Relevant statistics will be included in the “Results” section of the paper.

Results

As was stated earlier, we did 60 tests/surveys on 60 different people. These were done at two different locations, once at the Buzz, and again when Eric made rounds on the three Western dorms. To get data that was spread out in terms of relations and gender, the rounds of Western were made especially to hallways that Eric did not visit at all, and therefore would not be filled with good friends. This was the same reason that the surveys were distributed at the Buzz.
The strategy worked, if I do say so myself. Out of the 60 surveys, 24 (40%) were completed by males, and 36 (60%) by females. In terms of relations to Eric, 38% of the participants said they considered Eric a “complete stranger” or only “knew of him.” An additional 38% said Eric was an acquaintance, and 23% thought of Eric as a good friend or best friend.
Now the beginning of the important part: the good news is, we are live on a very giving campus. 70% of the people tested were willing to give up the dollar. To come by this, I combined the responses of “yes” and “would but I have no $” to form the general giving mood. To break it down by gender, 75% of males were giving of the dollar, versus 89% percent of females. This could be viewed as proof that females are more giving or nicer than males, which may be true, but this percent difference is not significant enough to prove from our data. More testing would be needed to prove this.
In my opinion, and hopefully yours, the most intriguing data would come from the people who were classified as “complete strangers” or “I knew of them” respondents. These are the people who really would be put up to the reciprocal altruistic test. Well, amazingly, there was some significant data within this relation subgroup. And surprisingly, it ran by gender. 16% of all male complete strangers were not willing to give Eric the money, versus a small 5.5% of female complete strangers who were untrusting of Eric. This adds onto the idea that perhaps females are more giving than males, but again, more tests would be required.
Not surprisingly, as giving as all people on Miami’s campus seem to be, the respondents in our survey were more willing to give a dollar to Eric depending on how well they knew him. 74% of all complete strangers, regardless of gender, were willing to give a dollar to Eric. Although this is a high figure, compare this to the 91% of acquaintances and 93% of best/good friends that would give a dollar to Eric.
As far as another testing point was concerned, we were hoping to get better response to the question “would you expect something in return?” There was nothing statistically significant about the responses. A mere 7% of respondents said they expected something in return, and these few responses did not correlate to gender, their altruism, or their relation to Eric.
If you would like to read some of best-written responses to our surveys, read on.

Some Interesting Quotes

Although we did not notice any trends from our written response questions that happened later in our survey, we thought it would be worthwhile to give you some of the interesting responses we received for these questions. They offer some stark insight into what people are thinking when it comes to giving to strangers, friends, charity, and government, and expecting something in return. They are organized by the question asked:

Did you expect something in return for the borrowed money? Why or why not?

“No, because it wasn’t a lot of money… and the borrower is a friendly person.”
-Female Acquaintance

“No, ff I expected something in return, I would become a capitalistic monkey.”
-Male Acquaintance

“No, it’s only a dollar/ It’s only a buck”
-Many, many respondents

“No, someone needed money. I didn’t even pay attention to who asked. I was playing video games at the time and didn’t even turn it down.”
-Female Acquaintance

Do you ever give to charity? Why or why not?

“No, I give time but I am always concerned about where [money] is going in a big organization.”
-Female Acquaintance

“Yes, knowing that someone benefited from it.”
-Male Total Stranger

“Yes, it’ll probably go to a better cause than me buying something stupid.”
-Male Good Friend

“Yes, someone gave to me once.”
-Male Total Stranger

Do you pay your taxes? Why?

“Yes- unfortunately, I expect the gov’t will rob me every day of my life, and my money will be spent on stupid shit like $500 hammers or $300 screws.
-Male Total Stranger

“Yes, I get a tax return and if I ever start popping out babies I can go on welfare.”
-Female Acquaintance

“Yes, I hope that someday someone’s taxes could help me out like mine have helped someone else (hopefully).”
-Female Total Stranger

“Yes, a refund.”
-Female Acquaintance

60 surveys total.
- 24 Male
- 36 Female

- 23 Total Strangers/I Knew of Them
- 23 Acquaintances
- 14 Best Friend/Good Friend.

Of the 24 Male Respondents
- 12 Donated - 4 strangers
- 5 acquaintances
- 3 friends

- 6 Would have Donated - 3 strangers
- 3 acquaintances
- 0 friends

- 6 Did not Donate - 4 strangers
- 1 acquaintances
- 1 friends

Of the 36 Female Respondents
- 21 Donated - 6 strangers
- 9 acquaintances
- 6 friends

- 12 Would have Donated - 4 strangers
- 4 acquaintances
- 4 friends

- 3 Did not Donate - 2 strangers
- 1 acquaintance
- 0 friends

75 % of male respondents donated or were planning on donating.
89 % of female respondents donated or were planning on donating.
29 % of male strangers donated versus 28 % of female strangers.
16 % of male strangers did not donate versus 5.5 % of female strangers.
74 % of all strangers donated.
91 % of all acquaintances donated.
93 % of all friends donated. (very small sample size)

Yes No Would have totals
Male 12 6 6 24
Female 21 12 3 36
totals 33 18 9 60

Male Total Female Total Male Acq. Female Acq. Male Best/Good Female Best/Good
Yes/Would have 7 10 8 13 3 10
No 4 2 1 1 1 0

Total total Total acq. Total B/G
Yes/Would have 17 21 13
No 6 2 1
Totals 23 23 14 60
Percentages 73.91304348 91.30434783 92.85714286

Total total Total acq. Total B/G
Percentage Yes 74% 91% 93%

Stingy Strangers Male Female
% that did not give 16 5.5

[note: graphs not present in online version]

Conclusion

Well, there you have it. Sixty surveys later, we have some tangible data to work with. As we stated in the introduction, we were trying to find a connection between altruism and relation, as well as a connection to altruism and gender. From the data that we collected, we can say that old saying, “it’s all about who you know.” The better one knows another person, the more altruistic towards the other person they will become. The better the people in our survey knew Eric, the more willing they were give him a dollar. The correlation was apparent.
In terms of altruism being related to gender, that is a little harder to prove. Our study did show that as far as complete strangers are concerned, females were more willing to give money than males were. We also found that overall, females were more giving than males, though not by much (89% versus 75%, respectively). This data would seem to agree with some evolutionary theory. As far as male bonding and friendship is concerned, it would make sense that males are altruistic towards other males they know, and when a stranger is threatening something of theirs, the male would not comply with their wishes. In a larger sense, the males also may have felt that by helping out a strange male, they were depriving themselves of a dollar that could be spent on attempting to mate. Now I know Eric did not threaten the surveyors for money, but they were put on the spot all of a sudden. And the other males didn’t retaliate in any way, but some did refuse to give Eric money. That dollar really goes a long way towards reproductive success, I’m sure.
As far as female evolutionary theory is concerned, females have been found to be kinder, and more nurturing towards other beings, and this kindness stems from paternal investment, and spreads to all other beings. This is apparent in the data because a higher percentage of my female acquaintances and friends did or were going to give Eric money (64%) versus males (46%). And as was stated before, Eric was not threatening in his plea for a dollar, it was simply asking, “Could I have a dollar?” Not feeling threatened by what is viewed as the dominant gender gave females more altruism. Many female friends of Eric cited in their survey that they considered the trustworthiness of the borrower when making their decision.
In the future, if this survey were to be run again, I think a few things should be changed. For one, we would of course have to get more data. Although sixty is quite a lot of surveys, there can always be more. Furthermore, I would expand it to include more of campus. Western has always made a hallmark of trusting and builds its program off of its small community, where everybody at least knows of everyone else, so it was hard to get data that was from complete strangers. And although the Buzz is a good place to catch non-Western people, many of the same personality traits that are in a typical Western student are found in the typical Buzz patron, to the point that Buzz is considered Western’s home away from home. The survey would also be tweaked to attempt to get behind the factors of the borrowing decision. The list on the survey can be added on to. Lastly, we would change the amount of money being asked for, to make the choice a little bit harder. Perhaps two dollars would be enough that plenty of people might be willing to give up, but not an extravagant amount that no one could spare. If our data trends continue, the more money that is asked for, the fewer strangers would be willing to give. Females would also continue to be more willing to give than fellow competitive males.

For Further Info on this Topic, Check out this WWW Site: http://www.memepool.com . Next Article
Previous Article
Return to the Topic Menu