In this blog post, we’ll explore why humans go beyond their instinctive self-interest to help others, and how communication fosters altruism.
Have you ever seen someone around you who lives their life for others rather than for themselves? You don’t have to look far—most parents fit this description. If we consider humans to be rational beings who instinctively prioritize their own interests, such behavior on the part of parents might seem strange at first glance. Yet, in reality, we all accept this behavior as perfectly natural. It is not just parents; firefighters who rescue others in emergencies, medical staff who care for patients day and night in hospitals, and volunteers who strive to help the socially vulnerable also dedicate themselves to others beyond their own interests. Such altruistic behavior fosters social bonds and motivates people to willingly make efforts for others; we are moved by these actions and sometimes even reflect on the value of life.
One of the many hypotheses explaining such altruistic behavior is the “kin selection hypothesis.” This hypothesis interprets altruistic behavior from the perspective that caring for one’s own children—who carry one’s genes—is ultimately a survival strategy to pass on one’s genes to future generations. In other words, a parent’s devotion can be understood as part of an effort to continue their genetic lineage. Viewed through this logic, altruistic acts are ultimately interpreted as being for one’s own benefit. Similarly, the “reciprocal altruism hypothesis” explains altruistic behavior as an action taken in the expectation that one will receive help from the person one has helped in the future. Consequently, most hypotheses explaining altruistic behavior share the perspective that acts of kindness toward others are possible because they ultimately benefit the individual as well.
However, these hypotheses fail to adequately explain situations where helping others yields no physical benefit to oneself, such as when people lost in the mountains share their remaining water or when individuals help one another in life-or-death situations. Such extreme altruistic behavior leaves us with questions. The hypothesis that explains these situations is the “Communication Hypothesis.” According to this hypothesis, simply by sharing thoughts and conveying intentions through conversation, humans can temporarily set aside their self-interest and make decisions to benefit others. The Communication Hypothesis demonstrates the crucial role played by human social nature and emotional exchange.
One study designed to test the Communication Hypothesis is the “Common Pool Resource” experiment led by Professor Juan Camilo Cárdenas of the Universidad de los Andes in Bogotá, Colombia. A common pool resource is a resource, such as pastureland, that is jointly owned by everyone, but if one person uses it excessively, others are left with nothing. Professor Cárdenas conducted an experiment simulating a common-pool resource scenario by dividing 65 college students and 40 farmers into teams of five and creating a hypothetical situation. In this experiment, each participant could harvest resources; while harvesting more resources increased individual rewards, it simultaneously reduced the total amount of resources available to the team, leading to unfavorable outcomes for others. This choice regarding resource use ultimately created a dilemma: should participants take as much as possible for their own benefit, or conserve resources for the benefit of the group as a whole?
Before looking at the experimental results, it seems advantageous to harvest more resources to maximize individual rewards, regardless of how much others harvest. However, in the actual experiment, participants collected fewer resources than expected. To investigate the impact of communication on altruistic behavior, Professor Cárdenas designed two additional experiments. In the first experiment, participants were unable to communicate at all, while in the second, they were allowed to share their thoughts through conversation either once midway through the game or after each round.
In the experiments where communication was possible, team members reached an agreement to conserve resources, and the amount of resources collected decreased significantly. This suggests that humans possess the ability to promote the interests of the community through dialogue with others. These results demonstrate that conversation can serve as a key factor in eliciting altruistic behavior, going beyond simply being a means of communication between individuals.
Through these experiments, we have learned that the communication hypothesis can significantly influence human altruistic choices. However, it is difficult to assume that all altruistic acts arise from communication. For example, people who anonymously donate large sums to hospitals or who sponsor African refugees they have never met with a fixed monthly amount engage in altruistic behavior without going through a process of communication. In this regard, some scholars question the communication hypothesis, sometimes dismissing conversation as nothing more than “idle chatter.” Nevertheless, it is difficult to deny that communication is, in many cases, a crucial means of fostering a sense of solidarity with others and regulating individual selfish desires to promote the collective good.
As such, we have confirmed through the common-pool resource experiment that communication can play a role in triggering altruistic behavior. Even through verbal promises alone, people make altruistic decisions through interaction with others, which ultimately contributes to the stability and sustainability of society as a whole.
