ARE HUMANS GENEROUS BY NATURE?

Are humans generous by nature?

Have you ever supported a fundraiser at your local school?

What about helping an unhoused person with money or food? Or a friend or relative?

Despite its reputation as a hobby of the mega-wealthy, philanthropy is all around us. You likely participated in a philanthropic act just today. Humans are extraordinarily generous creatures. But why?

Throughout history, there have been demonstrated advantages for humans and even animals who cooperate with and help each other. Years of research have given us an understanding of fitness interdependence, which, as defined by Aktipis et al., 2018, p. 1, refers to the 'degree to which two or more organisms positively or negatively influence each other's success in replicating their genes.'

Mark Nowak's article Five Rules of Cooperation acknowledges that cooperation is a necessary part of natural selection since there is a benefit for the would-be reproducer to help others, ensuring reproduction. However, research has also indicated that due to natural selection, defectors (i.e., the person receiving) are more likely to survive – despite communities with higher concentrations of cooperators having a higher likelihood of survival. This finding interested me, and I was curious about how we decide to help and who we decide to help.

As it turns out, here are several mechanisms of cooperation defined by both the National Institute of Health and research conducted by Herbert Gintis that humans use, including kin selection (favors reproductive success of organism's relatives, even when at a cost to the organism's survival (Gintis), direct reciprocity (individuals use their own experience to decide whether to cooperate with another person (Schmid et al., 2021), and indirect reciprocity, or cooperation that is based on shared moral systems and individual reputations.

While these approaches explain what type of logic drives our cooperative actions in each setting, they don't expound upon the “engine” of each of those mechanisms: empathy. Empathy plays a role in direct reciprocity by assisting individuals in understanding the perspective and needs of others, leading to the development of mutual trust and cooperation.

When individuals are empathetic towards each other, they are more likely to cooperate and help each other achieve their shared goals. This cooperative behavior is often seen in close relationships where individuals have a strong emotional connection and understanding of each other's needs. Direct reciprocity seems to be the framework for the most common type of generosity behavior – and could be considered a driver of kin selection. Friendships, romantic, and familial relationships most often have a foundation built on direct reciprocity.

Indirect reciprocity holds the expectation that kind acts will be remembered and repaid by others in the future. Empathy plays a role in indirect reciprocity by allowing individuals to understand the emotional state and needs of others, leading to the development of a positive reputation. When individuals are perceived as being empathetic and helpful, they are more likely to receive help from others in the future, even from individuals they may not have helped directly. This could better explain our perception of philanthropy as a hobby of the mega-rich and challenge our perception of those who have more money as inherently morally upright and generous.

In both mechanisms, empathy is a driving force for cooperation by promoting understanding and trust among individuals. By fostering empathetic relationships, individuals can build strong, cooperative networks and support each other, leading to greater success and satisfaction for all parties involved.

However, as Sara Konrath points out, empathy is imperfect – it can even cause people to become aggressive, or become morally fixated on individuals simply due to proximity. Empathy also has other potential flaws:

• Emotional Overload: Empathy involves feeling the emotions of others, and this can sometimes be overwhelming. Experiencing the emotions of others can lead to emotional exhaustion or burnout.

• Bias: Empathy is influenced by personal biases and prejudices, which can result in a distorted or incomplete understanding of others. An individual who is biased against a particular group may struggle to empathize with members of that group.

• One-Sided: Empathy is often a one-sided experience, with one person experiencing the emotions of another without the other person having a mutually reciprocal understanding of their emotions. This can lead to disconnection and a lack of mutual understanding.

• Inaccuracy: Empathy is only sometimes an accurate representation of another person's feelings. Emotions and perspectives are complex. It can be difficult to fully understand another person's feelings, especially in situations where emotions are running high.

My own cooperative behaviors in my life (helping others move or watching pets) are driven by direct reciprocation. However, my charitable and professional life has been influenced by indirect reciprocation. I research organizations to ensure they uphold ethical standards before donating, and avoid organizations I have heard reputation-damaging stories about. In this context, it makes sense that Charity Watchdog groups have grown in popularity amongst a new generation of empowered donors.

Interestingly, in fundraising, relationships and values are everything – but take on different forms depending on where we live and are heavily influenced by local cultures. In a general sense, since we must ensure that we are leading from the heart and prioritizing a value match when soliciting gifts, we work with indirect reciprocity based on our professional reputation and the reputations of the organizations we are seeking funding for.

In Pakistan, for instance, individuals tend to be active participants in a horizontal way of giving – instead of giving to institutions, they show generosity behavior by giving to individuals that they know and value in the moment (Amjad & Ali.) A preference to give in a horizontal framework such as this rather than a vertical one is found with some frequency amongst underrepresented cultures in philanthropic studies. The same value system can be found in African communities that practice the idea of ubuntu. (Fowler & Mati.)

Throughout my time researching this topic, it has become very clear to me that humans are, indeed, generous by nature – albeit flawed, and sometimes self-motivated. Understanding these mechanisms behind giving will allow us to better serve donors, cooperators, and defectors worldwide.