{"id":46861,"date":"2021-08-23T11:25:21","date_gmt":"2021-08-23T15:25:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.shortform.com\/blog\/?p=46861"},"modified":"2021-09-01T11:43:27","modified_gmt":"2021-09-01T15:43:27","slug":"why-do-people-give","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.shortform.com\/blog\/why-do-people-give\/","title":{"rendered":"Adam Grant: Why Do People Give?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Why do people give to others? Are humans inherently altruistic? Or do we help others for personal gain?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In his book Give and Take, <\/em>Adam Grant discusses the age-old question: are humans inherently selfish? He presents studies that were done on the subject and looks at popular apps like Freecycle to see if he can gain some insight into the truth.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Keep reading to learn why people give, according to Adam Grant.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Why Do People Give?<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

There are two schools of thought<\/a> as to why people give. C. Daniel Batson argues we give out of pure altruism, not because it makes us feel good but because we care for the other person. In contrast, Robert Cialdini argues there\u2019s no such thing as pure altruism \u2013 we give because we feel pain, and helping relieves our own pain. In Cialdini\u2019s view, giving is actually selfish.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Batson argued that if Cialdini were completely right, then all people would just relieve empathetic pain by leaving the situation. In one experiment where people watched a woman getting shocked, 75% of people left. But a percentage of people stayed and offered to help take the shocks in her<\/strong> place<\/strong>, so some people help for reasons other than solving their own pain.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In return, Cialdini then argued, with experiments, that when we see someone suffering, we essentially become one with the victim \u2013 we see ourselves in the victim, and that\u2019s why we help. The more we see ourselves in them, the more we help. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In return, Batson argued \u2013 this is <\/em>altruism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is no definitive answer given in the book, but just as in otherish giving, the answer need not be purely one or the other. We can give both out of self-interest and out of other-interest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Common Ground and Identity<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Per Cialdini\u2019s stance, when you identify more strongly with someone else, you tend to help more<\/strong>. Not only do we see ourselves in them (and thus we\u2019re helping ourselves), if you belong to the same group, then helping them helps yourself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In an interesting study, soccer fans of Manchester United were asked to answer questions about why Manchester was their favorite team. They then walked between buildings, where they saw a person wearing 1 of 3 shirts slip and grab his ankle in pain. Depending on what the person was wearing, the Manchester fan had different propensities to help:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/td>Manchester Shirt<\/td>Liverpool Shirt<\/td>Plain Shirt<\/td><\/tr>
Manchester Primed<\/td>92%<\/td>30%<\/td>33%<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The Manchester fan clearly helped a member of his own group. Liverpool is Manchester\u2019s rival, and the research subject essentially treated the person the same as though he were wearing a plain shirt.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But in another experiment, the Manchester fan were instead prompted to ask about why they were football fans and what it meant to them<\/strong>. In this case, the Manchester fan saw the Liverpool fan as being in the same group, raising the helping percentage dramatically.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/td>Manchester Shirt<\/td>Liverpool Shirt<\/td>Plain Shirt<\/td><\/tr>
Manchester Primed<\/td>92%<\/td>30%<\/td>33%<\/td><\/tr>
Football Primed<\/td>80%<\/td>70%<\/td>22%<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

This helps explain the idea of homophily, where people of similar types (ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation) tend to band together. We tend to like other people who are like us, and we like people who like the same things we do.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If we look at broader commonalities between us (like \u201cwe\u2019re all humans on this giant rock called Earth hurtling through space\u201d), it becomes easier to give.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This effect explains the odd behavior of preferring things similar to our names<\/strong>. People named Jack were 4x more likely than Phillip to live in Jacksonville, even though the names are equally common. And it\u2019s not just that parents name their kids after where they live \u2013 people named Georgia move to Georgia 2x as much. People named Dennis were 2x as likely to become a dentist compared to Jerry or Walter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Oddly, people with positive initials (like ACE or JOY) tend to live years longer than those with negative initials (like BUM). This could be because people are more comfortable with negative outcomes that remind them of themselves. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Optimal Distinctiveness<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

This group identification effect works better when the group is unique and rarer \u2013 to have uncommon commonalities.<\/strong> This achieves the right balance of belonging vs uniqueness. Groups with optimal distinctiveness create the greatest feelings of pride and cohesion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In an experiment, a subject showed up with a confederate college student. A researcher took both people\u2019s fingerprints. The confederate then asked for help on an English essay. <\/p>\n\n\n\n