People often think of altruistic behavior as a detriment, but in relationships where people interact repeatedly, trust and cooperation can be built, leading to greater long-term benefits.
A high school class has been assigned one of the resource center printers to print on, so each class decides to share the cost of A4 printing paper for the resource center. But at the beginning of a class meeting, a thought occurs to some of your friends. “Wait a minute, what if I say I don’t need the paper, so I won’t pay for it? It’s not like you can stop me from using it!” Eventually, they did say that, and they were able to use the printer like everyone else, even though they didn’t pay for it.
This behavior seems like a classic example of “free riding. In the social sciences, free riding is a very important issue when it comes to resources or services that are public goods. In this case, printing paper acts as a public good, in that some students can benefit from it without having to pay for it, which is the crux of the problem: why do people still contribute to the public good and act altruistically?
When printing paper is provided, people have a reason to act selfishly because they get the benefits and save money. In this situation, self-interested behavior seems like the superior strategy. In other situations, free riding and selfish behavior can be a good strategy to reap the benefits without the costs. So why isn’t society overflowing with selfish people? In fact, we often see altruistic behavior in society. People who donate money to the less fortunate, volunteer their time to help others, and others who practice altruistic behaviors don’t hesitate to take action even when they have something to lose.
These altruistic acts have long intrigued scientists. Biologists and sociologists have proposed a variety of hypotheses to explain these behaviors. Some have proposed the “kin selection hypothesis,” which suggests that only people who are closely related to each other engage in altruistic behavior. The idea is that people with the same genes share benefits with each other, which in turn helps spread their genes. However, this doesn’t explain when people who are not related to each other do good deeds. One hypothesis that grew out of this struggle is the “tit for tat” hypothesis.
You’ve heard the phrase “tit for tat,” or TFT? It comes from a simple principle written in the Code of Hammurabi, one of the world’s oldest legal codes. The TFT strategy is based on the principle of reciprocity – returning favor with favor and malice with malice – and this simple principle plays an important role in explaining altruistic behavior.
This principle doesn’t just apply to human societies; groups of chimpanzees are often seen grooming each other and sharing food. In his research, Professor Frans de Waal, a leading chimpanzee researcher, found that their altruistic behavior is based on the principle of reciprocity. If A had groomed B’s fur in the past, when A asked B for food, B was more likely to share it with A. On the other hand, if A asked for food without grooming B, B was more likely to refuse A’s request. This principle means that the acts of devotion we see in chimpanzees are never unconditional, but only if the other person has done them a favor in the past. In a group with this principle, it would be difficult for someone with selfish tendencies to survive.
Also, if the reciprocal transaction is repeated many times, the probability of altruistic behavior naturally increases. Who are you more likely to extend favors and be more careful with: someone you meet once or twice and never see again, or family and friends you’re with all the time? The vast majority of us will be more likely to extend favors and be more careful with family and friends we see frequently. It’s a psychological principle that stems from the persistence of human relationships. In a group where malice is rewarded with malice, the other party who lost out will not do business with the selfish person the next time, so the selfish person gains in the moment but loses in the long run. Eventually, altruistic behaviors that seemed irrational become rational in repeated relationships.
This repetition-reciprocity hypothesis can explain many altruistic behaviors in everyday life. Do you have a favorite fruit vendor that your family frequents? Why would the owner of that favorite fruit vendor not cheat and sell you poor quality fruit? If the fruit vendor cheats, he may gain a short-term advantage, but losing his loyal customers is a big loss. This example can also be explained by the reciprocity principle. The shopkeeper is being honest with his customers because he values building long-term trust rather than short-term profit.
Let’s go back to the printing paper problem. Students who use paper without paying for it may seem like they’re saving money at first, but according to the principle of reciprocity, their friends will likely stop doing them favors. Eventually, they’ll find it difficult to maintain close relationships within the class, and in the long run, they’ll find themselves in an uncomfortable situation. In this way, being selfish in society isn’t necessarily a successful strategy. Selfless behavior may seem like a loss in the short term, but in the long run, it can create a foundation of trust and cooperation that leads to greater benefits.
