Attitudes Toward Altruism or Selfishness among Boys and Girls Depending upon Virtual or Real Communication Preferences

Introduction

Altruism as a psychological phenomenon is currently being actively studied by social scientists, but there is still no agreed-upon understanding of its nature and content (Ilyin, 2013). There are several approaches to the study of altruistic behavior, each of which follows its own research methodology. One, the evolutionary approach, assumes that altruistic behavior is the result of natural selection and evolutionary development; that is,  people show altruism to improve their chances of survival and procreation. Another, the socio-psychological approach, is based on the assumption that prosocial behavior is the result of the influence of the social environment and interaction between people. It studies how social factors, such as norms of behavior, cultural values, and social roles, influence altruistic behavior (Crocker et al., 2008; Laverycheva, 2009).

 Highlighting the social aspect when explaining the selfless assistance of strangers contributes to understanding altruism as the opposite of egoism, but altruism and egoism are not contradictory, but complementary phenomena (Carlson et al., 2011; Myers, 2007). Prosocial behavior is influenced by both disinterested and selfish considerations (Batson, 2011). Many psychologists have done experiments studying the relationship between selfishness and altruism in helping other people (Penner et al., 2005). Altruism is a form of prosocial behavior that is characterized by actions aimed at helping other people without any personal benefits or interests. Altruistic behavior can be associated with a risk to life, and a loss of time and finances, but at the same time the person continues to help other people.

Prosocial behavior and altruism are important psychological concepts that reflect the human capacity for empathy for other people. The manifestation of prosocial behavior and altruism contributes to the creation of a favorable social environment and the improvement of people's quality of life. Research shows that prosocial behavior and altruism can be stimulated by social norms, cultural values, and patterns of behavior, as well as by public institutions such as charitable organizations and state social assistance programs (Penner et al., 2005).

Ilyin argued that altruism is an important quality that helps us live in a more just and harmonious society. He also identified various types of altruism, such as empathy, justice and mercy, and popularized the concept of "existential altruism," which stems from people’s belief that altruistic actions help give meaning and value to their lives (Ilyin, 2013).

We believe that altruism has three components: 1) a cognitive component (understanding through the prism of ideas, knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes); 2) emotional component (altruistic or egoistic behavior is identified through the prism of emotional reactions such as empathy, pity, compassion, indifference, etc.); and 3) a behavioral component (help, support, and care).

Communication in virtual space like social networks develops the cognitive and emotional components of altruism, but makes it difficult to form a behavioral component; in situations of real interaction, young people do not have the skills to provide effective assistance to another person. Real communication contributes to the development of all three components and the behavioral component, in particular, is formed as a social skill.

Altruism and egoism are interrelated with different personal characteristics and a different combination is formed in society (Moiseeva, 2007).

Differentiating by gender opens up new opportunities for the study of manifestations of egoism and altruism, ones in which there is no rigid polarization and hierarchy of "male" and "female." Gender analysis allows us to look for the origins of differences in attitudes toward egoism or altruism in boys and girls in the specifics of their socialization and orientation to certain gender roles (Ilyin, 2002; Ilyin, 2010). We share the point of view that a person’s gender characteristics reflect the differences between men and women formed under the influence of social factors. Therefore, the altruistic or egoistic orientation of the individual can be considered as gender differences, although they are formed under the conditions of certain factors of education and upbringing.

There are contradictory results of studies comparing the prosocial behavior of men and women. Sh. Bern writes that "generally accepted stereotypes describing women as caring and sympathetic suggest that they should help others more than men"(Bern, 2001). Iagli and Crowley conducted a meta-analysis of socio-psychological research and found that it was men who helped others more often than women (Eagly & Crowley, 1986). A. Iagli notes that the provision of assistance depends on the type of helping actions that are prescribed by gender roles (Eagly, 1983).

This study was part of a research cycle devoted to the problem of altruism-egoism (Kashirskaya, 2020; Kashirskaya, 2021). Its aim was to identify gender-specific attitudes toward egoism-altruism in adolescents who preferred a digital environment, compared to those engaged in different types of activities with real human interaction. The study assumed that attitudes towards altruism or egoism are interrelated with the orientation toward real communication or Internet communication, and that there are gender-specific attitudes towards altruism-egoism in adolescents who prefer different types of communication and interaction. There are also differences in attitudes to altruism-egoism among boys and girls in the sample as a whole.

Methods

This study  used the following methods: 1) questionnaire and conversation; 2) O.F. Potemkina's method of diagnosis of altruism (Raygorodsky, 2001) or egoism; and 3) Chen's scale of Internet addiction, as adapted by V.L. Malygin and K.A. Feklistov (Malygin, 2011). The hypotheses were tested using qualitative analysis and methods of mathematical statistics (Fisher's criterion). The study involved 120 secondary school students, 57 of whom were boys and 46 were girls.

Results and Discussion

Based on the preferences of the boys and girls in the field of communication shown in the questionnaires, conversations, and Chen's scale of Internet addiction, the subjects were divided into two groups: 1) those who preferred to communicate in a digital environment, and 2) those who preferred to actually interact with other people by engaging in various activities. The teenagers in the first group spent almost all their free time, in virtual space. There they communicated with friends, made new acquaintances, got necessary information and news, watched movies and videos, browsed various websites, etc. Such teenagers had a tendency toward Internet-dependent behavior.

The teenagers in the second group were also well-oriented on the Internet and spent part of their free time on virtual communication, but, they also attended sports clubs, engaged in various interest groups, participated in volunteer movements, etc. Such adolescents had a minimal risk of Internet-dependent behavior. Next, we calculated how many boys and girls were included in each of these groups. As a result, all the subjects were divided into four groups according to two criteria: preference for the type of communication and gender.

Figure 1. Differences in the preference for virtual or real communication for boys and girls

Most of the teenagers preferred virtual communication over real communication (68% and 32%, respectively).  Among those who preferred real communication, there were twice as many boys as girls (66% and 34%, respectively). Conversely, among the teenagers who preferred virtual communication, there are more girls (61%) than boys (39%). Thus, significant differences were revealed between boys and girls in their orientations toward different types of communication (2,768*- Fisher's criterion); i.e., girls were more focused on virtual communication.

Then, the teenagers’ socio-psychological attitudes toward altruism-egoism were analyzed.

Figure 2. Attitudes to altruism-egoism in young men with different communication preferences

 The majority of young men (84%) who preferred real communication had a desire to help other people. In the process of their development, they had formed a desire to provide selfless help, sometimes even to the detriment of themselves. As a result, they acquired an altruistic attitude, which became a moral principle. Since they were active in society, and accustomed to making independent decisions and taking responsibility for their actions, they could take responsibility for other people, provide care for them, and protect them. Altruism was their personal belief, an internalized moral norm of society. Such young men were distinguished by a high level of empathy and the ability to understand other people’s problems. Therefore, they were ready to provide concrete assistance to people who had fallen into difficult life circumstances.

The young men who preferred virtual communication expressed attitudes toward altruism and selfishness to the same extent. In the young men with an egoistic mindset, social activity was reduced. They believed that they could not control what is happening; they believed in luck, and that most of the events of their lives depended either on circumstances or on the actions of other people. Therefore, they were not ready to help others, believing that everything would be resolved by itself. They had a weakly expressed motive of social duty and social responsibility. Such young men were more conformist and sometimes overly aggressive; they showed less tolerance for other people, and were not sensitive to their problems. Therefore, they were selfish, and as a result, incapable of altruistic behavior.

Thus, significant differences in attitudes towards altruism or egoism among the young men, depending upon their preferences for different types of communication, were revealed (2.802*-). 

Figure 3. Attitudes to altruism-egoism in girls with different communication preferences.

The girls’ attitudes toward altruism-egoism were expressed in a different proportion than the boys’. More than half of the female subjects who preferred real communication (62%) showed an attitude of altruism; the remaining 38%, an attitude of selfishness. Altruistic girls, like the boys, showed a desire to help others. These girls showed empathy and strove to take care of the weaker, to comfort them and protect them if necessary.

But even among the girls who preferred real communication, there were quite a number who turned out to be selfish; that is, they put their own interests above the interests of other people, preferring to satisfy their own needs first. There were very few egoists among young men with this type of communication preference compared to the girls -- only 16%.

Almost all the girls (84%) who preferred virtual communication demonstrated an attitude of selfishness, i.e., they were not ready to help selflessly, often to their own detriment. Such girls did not even want to take responsibility for themselves, preferring to rely on chance; they did not want to intervene in the lives of other people to change their situation, even for the better. If such people are afraid of responsibility, then they are certainly not going to take responsibility for others.

Thus, significant differences in attitudes towards altruism or egoism were revealed among the girls, depending on their preferences for type of communication (3,148*- Fisher's criterion). 

Figure 4. Attitudes to altruism-egoism in boys and girls

As we have suggested, there were differences in attitude toward altruism-egoism in boys and girls. The majority of the young men (65%) had an altruistic attitude. They were ready to protect, take care of the weaker, provide assistance to those who need it, take responsibility, and make decisions not only for themselves, but also for others. Most likely, the motive of moral duty which prevailed among the young men, was associated with moral satisfaction, maintaining self-esteem, and the emergence of a sense of pride when committing altruistic acts. It is believed that the men show increased personal responsibility for society as a whole, and not just for their loved ones. This explanation corresponds to the theory of social norms, according to which we must provide assistance to those who need it; we must follow the norms of social responsibility.

The majority of the girls (75%) had a socio-psychological propensity toward selfishness. We can explain this by the fact that despite the fact that girls, according to many studies, are more empathetic, their emotional empathy does not always make them ready to provide effective help to another person, especially if this person is not part of their "inner circle." Women are less inclined than men to sacrifice themselves for the sake of strangers, to help "abstract" others to the detriment of themselves. The predominance of egoistic attitudes this study found among girls may also be related to age characteristics, since teenage girls do not yet have the experience of caring and helping behavior towards their children and husband. Evolutionary theory may also explain this result: according to that theory, egoists are more adapted to life's difficulties, since they take care of themselves first. In addition, a woman is forced to ensure the well-being of her children, even sometimes at the expense of others.

Thus, significant differences in attitudes toward altruism-egoism between boys and girls were revealed (4,469*- Fisher's criterion). There were more altruists among the boys than among the girls. But in general, more than half the teenagers (56%) turned out to be egoists.

Conclusion

Significant differences between boys and girls in their orientations toward different types of communication have been revealed, i.e., girls were more focused on virtual communication. Significant differences in attitudes toward altruism or selfishness among young men, depending on their preferred different type of communication, were also revealed. The majority of young men who preferred real communication had a desire to help other people. Significant differences in attitudes toward altruism or selfishness among the girls, depending on their preferred type of communication, were also revealed. Almost all the girls who preferred virtual communication demonstrated an attitude of selfishness. Significant differences in attitudes toward altruism and selfishness between boys and girls were revealed. There were more altruists among the boys than among the girls.

Limitations

For greater validity of the conclusions, it is desirable to expand the sample to study not only high school students, but also those in universities. This could allow us to confirm the data obtained and exclude the influence of the social component. It would allow for a more in-depth analysis of the manifestations of prosocial behavior.

Conflict of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

Acknowledgements

This research project did not have special funding. The author expresses gratitude to the children who took part in the study, as well as to the staff of the school's psychological service who assisted in this work.

References

1. Batson, C.D. (2011). Altruism in Humans, Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195341065.001.0001

2. Bern, S. (2001). Gendernaia psikhologiia [Gender Psychology]. St. Petersburg.

3. Carlson, J., & Horgan, M. (2011). Altruism and society sui generis: Countering evolutionary psychology with Durkheim. In Altruism, Morality and Social Solidarity Forum: A Forum for Scholarship and Newsletter of the AMSS section of ASA. Volume 3, issue 1 (pp. 17–24).

4. Crocker, J., & Canevello, A. (2008). Creating and undermining social support in communal relationships: The role of compassionate and self-image goals.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(3), 555-575. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.3.555

5. Eagly, A.H. (1983). Gender and social influence: A social psychological analysis. American Psychologist, 38, 971–981. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.38.9.971

6. Eagly, A.H., & Crowley, M. (1986). Gender and helping behavior: A meta-analytical review of the social psychological literature. Psychological bulletin, 100(3), 283–308. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.100.3.283

7. Ilyin, E.P. (2002). Differentsialʹnaia psikhofiziologiia muzhchiny i zhenshchiny [Differential psychophysiology of men and women]. St. Petersburg: Peter.

8. Ilyin, E.P. (2010). Pol i gender [Gender and gender]. St. Petersburg: Peter

9. Ilyin, E.P. (2013). Psikhologiia pomoshchi. Alʹtruizm, ėgoizm, ėmpatiia [Psychology of Help. Altruism, egoism, empathy]. St. Petersburg: Peter.

10. Kashirskaya, I. (2020). Ideas about altruism and selfishness students with different levels of empathy. In Innovative Technologies in Science and Education (ITSE-2020), Vol. 210. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202021018101

11. Kashirskaya, I.K. (2021). Altruism as a personal characteristic of a teacher in inclusive education. In Collection of Scientific Papers of the VII International Forum on Pedagogical Education. Kazan.

12. Laverycheva, I.G. (2009). Filosofskie i estestvennonauchnye osnovy teorii ėgoizma i alʹtruizma [Philosophical and natural science foundations of the theory of egoism and altruism]. PhD thesis. St. Petersburg.

13. Malygin, V.L (2011). Internet-zavisimoe povedenie. Kriterii i metody diagnostiki [Internet-dependent behavior. Criteria and methods of diagnosis]. Moscow.

14. Myers, D. (2007). Sotsialʹnaia psikhologiia [Social Psychology]. St. Petersburg: Peter.

15. Moiseeva, A.A. (2007). Alʹtruisticheskaia napravlennostʹ lichnosti i ee formirovanie v semʹe [Altruistic orientation of personality and its formation in the family]. PhD thesis. St. Petersburg.

16. Penner, L.A., Dovidio, J.F., Piliavin, J.A., & Schroeder, D.A. (2005). Prosocial behavior: Multilevel perspectives. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 365-392. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070141

17. Raygorodsky, D.Y. (2001). Prakticheskaia psikhodiagnostika. Metodiki i testy [Practical psychodiagnostics. Methods and tests]. Samara