Altruism... The Best of Pro-social Behavior

Pro-social behavior is an important part of collective efficacy and is also a very notable issue among social psychologists. With one of my emphases being psychology I find the every day random acts of kindness and the idea of altruism very interesting. There are many examples of altruism of which we all participate in daily such as holding open a door for a mother pushing a stroller, returning the twenty dollar bill dropped by the person ahead of you in the grocery store line, or perhaps rushing out to help the child who fell from her bicycle. These and many others are simple examples of how we demonstrate pro-social behavior. What psychology tries to determine is why we do it; why do we demonstrate pro-social altruistic behavior? The definition of altruism is unselfishly doing for others without obligation or coercion from outside sources. It is doing for others simply as a desire to help another. One of the ideas studied in psychology is the reward for altruistic behavior. Even though altruism involves action without obligation or reward, there is a reward for this type of pro-social behavior. So if we think we perform acts of altruism without the expectation of a reward; psychologists say there is often a subtle reward that drives the behavior. Research in the area of neurology shows that when engaged in an altruistic action that pleasure centers in the brain become active and thus reward the individual with good feelings. Cognitive psychologists have found that often people help others to relieve their own pain or to maintain the view of the self as being a kind and empathetic person (Cherry, 2013). In a 2012 article by Kate Douglas many question regarding the evolution and psychology of altruism were asked. The one that is of particular interest is why does it feel good to be nice. From an evolutionary standpoint it is in the best interest of the family (related) group to perform acts of altruism, this gives the group a better chance of survival and passing on their genes through reproduction. In other words, unselfishly saving the life of your mate, your sibling, or cousin; give a better chance of survival and passing on your family genes. So here again there is a reward for altruism in that the survival of the family genes are the reward. From a psychology and neuroscience position there is evidence suggesting that acts of altruism are rewarded by the pleasure centers of the brain. Hormones such as oxytocin and progesterone are ones related to feeling good (Brown, 2009).

Sampson points out in chapter nine the parallel between collective efficacy and altruism through the lost letter study. What I am proposing is that altruism is perpetuated along with collective efficacy because it makes people feel good to do and to continue to perform altruistic acts for others. The point is that from a perspective of psychology people like to feel good, and in areas where collective efficacy is high I believe this has a great deal to do with both self efficacy and the feel good euphoric results of altruistic acts. When a person selflessly does something for another person they feel better about themselves. I also found it interesting that Sampson mentions the evolutionary idea that altruism is favored in natural selection as it benefits the group (Sampson, p. 230). I believe there is sufficient evidence to show that altruism and collective efficacy are related and that from a psychology standpoint acts of altruism are an important part of the individual make up.

References:

Cherry, K. (2013, 09 29). About. Retrieved from Psychology about.com:                 http://psychology.about.com/od/aindex/g/what-is-altruism.htm

Douglas, K. (2012). Homo virtuous?. New Scientist, 216(2890), 42-45.

Stephanie Brown, B. F. (2009, June 04). Science + Religion Today. Retrieved from bonding            sciencereligiontoday.com: http://www.scienceandreligiontoday.com/2009/06/04/hormone-           linked-to--altruism/

COLLECTIVE EFFICACY THEORY

Before I delve into Sampson's collective efficacy theory I wanted to bring up the self efficacy theory of psychologist Albert Bandura. In 1977 Albert Bandura came up with the idea of self efficacy and I think it is an important part of Sampson's collective efficacy theory. What Bandura proposed is that self efficacy is one's belief in his or her ability to succeed in a particular situation. Furthermore, Bandura suggests that these beliefs are elements of how people think, behave, and feel. Bandura believed that what people think and perceive their abilities to succeed were; had an impact on how they felt, behaved, and how they thought. A person's self efficacy has a great deal to do with how an individual faces challenges, goals, and tasks. According to Bandura and research:

People with a strong sense of self-efficacy:

• View challenging problems as tasks to be mastered
• Develop deeper interest in the activities in which they participate
• Form a stronger sense of commitment to their interests and activities
• Recover quickly from setbacks and disappointments

People with a weak sense of self-efficacy:

• Avoid challenging tasks
• Believe that difficult tasks and situations are beyond their capabilities
• Focus on personal failings and negative outcomes
• Quickly lose confidence in personal abilities

I believe that in order for collective efficacy to gain the traction needed to make a difference in a neighborhood, a good number of the residents must have a strong sense of self efficacy. When considering the challenges that JR Fleming faces when he breaks into an abandoned house with the intention of making it a home for the homeless; he demonstrates his convictions as well as a very strong sense of self efficacy. We may or may not agree with his tactics; however, one can not diminish the fact that he believes passionately in what he is doing, after all J.R. stand for just righteous. When looking at the characteristics of both a strong and weak sense of self efficacy I could see how this mirrors what Sampson is trying to convey. collective efficacy is a process of initiating and transforming social ties within a neighborhood where the residents seek to achieve collective goals. The National Institute of Justice defines collective efficacy as follows, "mutual trust among neighbors combined with willingness to intervene on behalf of the common good." In my opinion without self efficacy, or in other word a belief that one individual can make a difference, collective efficacy can gain no traction. In his book, Great American City, Sampson describes collective efficacy as social cohesion (the collective part) and shared expectation for control (the efficacy part). In chapter seven he goes on to explain that social control is a collective effort and not an individual characteristic. What I am suggesting is that for a neighborhood, or even a small group of people, to make a difference they must believe that they can make a difference for the betterment of the neighborhood. Without strong self efficacy existing in some or many of the people they would not collectively be able to change. I found that in the reading the comparison between Stockholm Sweden and Chicago was interesting. There exists many similarities in the research, even though the racial differences exist between the two cities there were many commonalities as Sweden is experiencing a rise in immigration from places like Turkey and Yugoslavia. Similar data was found when surveys asks if neighbors could be trusted and if they would be willing to help each other. The real difference between the two cities was that Chicago is highly racially segregated as compared to Stockholm. 

When I thought about my own neighborhood and really examined the dynamics and diversity that exists; I cam to the conclusion that I can trust my neighbors, and they would help me if I needed help. We also share a common interest in control and we all subscribe to the rules, both written and unwritten, of the neighborhood. We have a homeowners association that is regulated as well as an unwritten and for the most part unspoken set of acceptable behaviors. I think here again is an example of the strong sense of self efficacy. Even though we do not all know each other very well we all share the same interests of and have a high collective efficacy. This is a great short video on self efficacy http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wrzzbaomLmc 

References:

1. http://psychology.about.com/od/theoriesofpersonality/a/self_efficacy.htm
2. http://www.nij.gov/pubs-sum/fs000203.htm
3. Sampson, R.J.; Great American City, University of Chicago Press, 2013
4. https://wikispaces.psu.edu/display/PSYCH484/7.+Self-Efficacy+and+Social+Cognitive+Theories
5. http://rebeccamancy.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/FrameworkVisual.jpg 

     Blog #4 Disorder and Broken Windows

      When we, by that I mean we humans, look at something we often fill the blanks with our own bias and information we have at our disposal. For example, I recently visited my daughter who lives in the suburbs of New Jersey. When I travel back East I often have to catch connecting flights which often take me through cities like Chicago, Houston, Atlanta, and other large cities. When I have the opportunity I venture out from the airport to see the city or some of the sites I may be interested in. When I come across areas of poverty or disorder my mind fills in the blanks for what I perceive to see and for what I do not understand. When we look at the world around us we actually process more visual information than actually exists, our brains fill in the edges with what we think should be there. In psychology this is referred to as boundary extension. We make judgement based on our experiences, knowledge and our biases. One of the other student blogs I read, titled perception, (sorry I can't remember whose it was) mentioned how people perceive safety when they see policeman on the streets. I often find myself making judgments based on perception and not reality when I visit a strange place. My mind goes through this boundary extension by filling in visual information that may or may not exist  If I see a group of dangerous looking people in an alley; I just witnessed a drug related crime. After reading the information in chapter six I had a thought that took me in a little different direction as I considered my emphases in business and psychology when considering how perception, ignorance, and bias have a strong effect on how people behave. From a business standpoint who would want to invest in an urban area filled with disorder. The broken windows theory as our texts describes states that predatory crime increases because the offenders assume no one cares or that no one is paying attention, or that they are merely indifferent. When potential investors from the private sector come along they may perceive the area as unsafe or potentially prone to increased crime, and therefore go elsewhere. I know this is a little bit of a tangent; however, there is a real issue with people, particularly people in poverty, having access to quality nutritious foods. The supermarkets have all but disappeared out of many lower income inner city neighborhoods. When the private sector infrastructure leaves I think that disorder appears and then the broken window theory actually takes place. Jobs become scarce, crime increases, and the beauty of diversity is eliminated and replaced by something ugly. I agree with Samson when he says that disorder leads to a lack of collective efficacy. When people lose the ability to watch out for each other and to hold each other accountable for the minimum accepted; it seems as though a domino effect takes place, and things slowly spiral down.  In this article by Sampson and Raudenbush titled Disorder in Urban Neighborhoods-Does It Lead to Crime? https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/186049.pdf they state, "physical disorder in urban neighborhoods can, if unchecked, lead to serious crime." I found that this article summed up Sampson's chapter six and was much more straight forward on the correlation between disorder and crime; reinforcing the broken window theory. the article also alludes to the problem that even the perception of disorder has on both insiders and outsiders looking at the urban environment. 

Blog Post #3

Couple of interesting facts:

1. Chicago is NOT the murder/homicide capital of the United states. In fact it is not even in the top ten according to http://247wallst.com/special-report/2013/06/13/the-most-dangerous-cities-in-america-3/3/.
2. Chicago is not even in the top ten for U.S.  for poverty rate. That illustrious prize goes to Brownsville-Harlingen, Texas with a poverty rate of 36.3% (http://www.usnews.com/news/slideshows/10-metro-areas-with-the-highest-poverty-levels/11). "Chicago has the third highest rate of extreme poverty of the nation's 10 largest cities, at 10.4 percent, according to the U.S. Census Bureau's 2011 American Community Survey" (http://www.chicagonow.com/chicago-muckrakers/2013/03/chicago-has-third-highest-extreme-poverty-rate-in-the-nation/). I bring this up to show how a perception can skew a persons view. While I am sure that Brownsville-Harlingen, Texas is a small place that most of us have never heard of; by percentage far more of their residents live in poverty. If you look at poverty rates through that microscope, Chicago would probably not make the top 100 for poverty rate.

The reason I bring this up is that Chicago often gets a bad rap when it comes to crime, as does many of our nations largest cities, especially ones Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles. I have to admit that my own personal view of Chicago has been tainted by what I read and see in the media, as well as my trips on Interstate 80 passing through only the South side of Chicago. Just recently over the Labor Day weekend I was traveling back from New York City where my wife and I sat next to a very nice woman from Chicago. she had lived in many places and works as a physical therapist  After talking with her and seeing her admiration for the city of Chicago I decided that I needed to set aside my preconceived notions about Chicago and find out the facts for myself. Now that is of my chest, on to the assignment...

The article Death and Life of Chicago was a very interesting read. I admire the conviction and dedication to the cause of the Anti-Eviction Campaign J.R. Fleming founded. The work he does in many ways is inspiring and I can at least agree with him that the responsibility to act in the name and interest of humanity is important. After reading the entire article and having a few days to think it over there was one thing that bothered me; a character he introduced in the story named Martha Biggs. I found myself wondering if Martha would have put as much effort into finding work as she did in squatting in a foreclosed house; if her story would be any different. I know that sounds a little sharp; however, one thing that was mentioned was they needed to act to take care of themselves and taking over bank owned foreclosed houses was their answer. I admire the work to get homeless people off the street and into housing, and I also think a home with family living in it is much better for the community that an empty foreclosed home that is deteriorating. The problem is what happens when the real owner come to take it back, or when the economy improves enough that the real owner cares again? I find no real difference, at least with the attitude, in a vigilante and this type of activism. Steal from the rich and give to the poor. One other issue is that there seems to be a correlation between the types of decisions made while living in public housing; both Fleming and Biggs lived at Cabrini Green and were drug users. I am sure it was a horrible place to live and grow up and I find that very sad, even cruel, but when do personal responsibility and consequence matter? Quoting from the article, "J. R. liked to proclaim that he didn't concern himself with the law, because he had human rights to back him up." I find this thinking dangerous, even though his cause is worthy, that he still finds it acceptable to break the law. In my mind there must be a better way to be an activist, one in which you do not have to break the law, steal, or squat in a bank owned foreclosed home.

Blog Post #2

As I read from chapter one from Sampson's Great American city, I found that when comparing to my city and all of the various places I have lived, there are similarities to what he describes in chapter one. I was born in Salt Lake City and spent much of my life right here in Utah. After starting a career and family I found opportunity and moved my family to Vermont where I lived for five years. After that I really needed to get back to the west were I could be closer to family and to my communities, so I was able to find work in Boise, Idaho. Before I speak about what my communities are I wanted to address the similarities I found in comparison to Sampson's writings. Here in St. George I live in on Sun Brook golf course in a nice middle class neighborhood, just a few miles away are neighborhoods consisting of apartments, low income housing, and trailer parks. I often drive past these places and see the diversity that resides there in comparison to my neighborhood. Where I live is predominately white, if I had to guess in the 95% range, and the residents are also much older than the other neighborhoods I mentioned (including me). There is a sense of safety, security, and commonalty where we live, and I feel that it is a better place than the others I have mentioned. While there is little interaction between myself and my neighbors, we are all strangers for the most part, there is a feeling of collective efficacy. We share the friendly smile and head nods as we roll by each other in our cars, or the pleasant how are you today as we pass each other on the sidewalk. Everyone takes pride in their yard and there exists not only a written code of conduct by way of a homeowner association, but more importantly the unwritten expectation to behave and be compliant in certain areas. While I have reached out and helped neighbors from time to time, we all seem to like our individuality and privacy. My perception is that we all share a location with certain expectations, without any personal connections to anyone else. Many of us have the same religious beliefs, kids in the same schools, and many other things in common; but no other connection that brings us closer to each other. Speaking for myself and my family, there is just simply no time for anyone else. In chapter one Sampson speaks of the diversity of the different areas of Chicago and I suppose that most places have this type of checker board neighborhoods to some degree. Speaking of my communities I would have to include my personal spiritual and religious beliefs. The time I spent in Vermont was as exciting as it was different; however, after a few years into the move I realized the values and culture was not a good fit for me or my family. Vermont did not meet my personal religious and spiritual needs, so I packed up and moved back to my place, the West. Work is another community for me as well as my wife. She is a speech pathologists and has networked into the community of others in her professional field. I find that I have done the same thing. I travel quite a bit for work and associate with others in my field and have made many friends who I confide in and trust. I believe we do this because it provides a common ground and more opportunity for growth and the acquisition of cultural currency.