PS3170A Psychology of Religion Hemis Number: 106902

“LORD MAKE ME AN INSTRUMENT OF THY PEACE;

Where there is hate that I may bring love,
Where there is offence that I may bring pardon,
Where there is discord that I may bring union,
Where there is error that I may bring truth,
Where there is doubt that I may bring faith,
Where there is discord that I bring hope,
Where there is darkness that I may bring light,
Where there is sadness that I may bring joy.
O master, make me not so much consoled
as to console; not so much to be loved as to love;
not so much to be understood as to understand;
for it is in giving that one receives; it is in
self forget-fullness that one finds; it is in pardoning
that one is pardoned; it is in dying that finds eternal life.”

Prayer of Saint Francis of Assisi.

.
2600 words
PS3170A Psychology of Religion Hemis Number: 106902
“Evaluate one paper with implications for the psychological understanding of religion, and assess
its implications”: Can psychological explanations of altruism adequately account for the life of Saint Francis, as
expressed in his famous prayer?
Saint Francis of Assisi lived a life of extreme self-sacrifice. He was prepared to tolerate all manner
of hardships and suffering. He only ever begged for the blackest crusts of bread, and slept only on
the coldest of floors. If he ever possessed more than he needed, he immediately gave what he did
have away. Yet, he was not once rewarded for what he did. Less joyful than sad- more selfless
than self-seeking- Saint Francis lived out a life of devotion and had a truly giving nature. His
celebrated prayer (found on the cover page) demonstrates his desperate desire for selflessness. It
represents him entirely. Whatever one chooses to use as a definition of altruism, it is unlikely that
the life of Saint Francis should fall outside its reach. Even a simple examination of his life and the
sentiments contained by his unassuming prayer should be enough not only to convince the sceptic
of the existence of altruism, but also to provide a perspective for understanding more about it.

The traditional concept of altruism has been weakened psychological attempts to understand it for
two reasons. Firstly, definitions of altruism have become too vague. Some actions that should not
be considered altruistic have been considered as so by psychologists (Darley and Latané 1970). Its
theoretical construct has been loosened, weakening its conceptual power. Secondly, and perhaps
more seriously, some psychologists have doubted whether altruism even exists (Dovidio, 1995). A
cynical view of human nature (probably adopted from evolutionary work) explains people in
terms of their selfishness, not selflessness. This assumption is clearly challenged by the life of
Saint Francis. It belittles his actions in an unwarranted manner, rendering his admirable sentiments
as purely egotistical.

The aim of this essay is to bring a sense of refreshment to the concept of altruism. The need for a
stricter definition of altruism is suggested, as is a change of research emphasis. A concentration on
situational rather than behavioural determinants of helping behaviour has required researchers to
concentrate their efforts on isolated incidents of pro-social behaviour. Saint Francis (a man who
continually served others) suggests that altruism is a personal quality rather than a result of
circumstance. Finally, for two reasons the Christian interpretation of Saint Francis and the pro-
social behaviour he exhibited will be presented. The Christian message has much to say about
altruism. Indeed, unlike the problems that it creates for science, altruism is a central theme of
many of the world’s religions (see Beaver et al, 1994 for a concise review of many of the world
religions). Furthermore, Saint Francis was a Christian. It is how he would have explained his
altruism.

-2-
PS3170A Psychology of Religion Hemis Number: 106902
“Evaluate one paper with implications for the psychological understanding of religion, and assess
its implications”: Can psychological explanations of altruism adequately account for the life of Saint Francis, as
expressed in his famous prayer?
There is a real danger that when judging the nature of a piece of behaviour in terms of its altruistic
origin, social psychologists are becoming too generous. Darley and Latané are prepared to call an
act altruistic so long as it is of benefit to someone in need, regardless the motives of the helper
(Macaulay and Berkowitz 1970). This is partly because of science generally and specifically of
psychological methodology. For example, a typical study might involve constructing some sort of
social situation in which passers-by are given the opportunity to assist in some way. If they help,
their actions are defined as altruistic- if they walk on by, their actions are not. Some variable is
then manipulated, and the number of ‘helpers’ in the various conditions is counted. Many
influential (and well-conducted) studies have been conducted in this way (e.g. Macaulay, 1970,
Darley and Latané, 1968, Piliavin et al., 1969). It is easy to understand why this could be
misleading. Certainly, it reveals circumstances in which people may well help, but their motives
for doing so remain hidden. Using this definition, it is perfectly possible, to think of someone who
is actually being selfish as altruistic. C. S. Lewis cautions against the dangers of associating words
with concepts that are too general, warning that such words have “every amiable quality except
that of being useful” (1952, p. 10). It is important that any definition of altruism is considerate of
the motives that prompted the helping behaviour.

A comprehensive psychological understanding of altruism is not yet well established. Difficulties

arise because any theory of such pro-social behaviour has to resolve the ‘altruistic paradox’. As
people have a natural tendency to behave in a predominantly selfish manner, unrewarded,
altruistic behaviour requires some kind of special explanation (Campbell, 1972). One way to
resolve this apparent paradox is to deny the existence of altruism totally. Both Latané and Darley’s
decision model (1970a), and Dovidio’s cost-reward analysis (1995), adopt this approach.

According to universal egoism, the concept of altruism is nothing more than a myth. Darley
indignantly proclaims that “to suggest that human action could arise for other purposes [than sheer
selfishness] is to court accusations of naivete or insufficiently deep or realistic analysis” (1991).
Latané and Darley provide a useful framework for understanding bystander intervention- a form of
pro-social behaviour that has been of particular interest to social psychologists (1970). According
to their decision model of bystander intervention, it is possible to predict whether a person will
engage in helping behaviour patterns based on social variables. The principal of pluralistic
ignorance states that people will be less likely to help someone in need if other potential helpers
are available. This concept, known as diffusion of responsibility, has received impressive empirical

-3-
PS3170A Psychology of Religion Hemis Number: 106902
“Evaluate one paper with implications for the psychological understanding of religion, and assess
its implications”: Can psychological explanations of altruism adequately account for the life of Saint Francis, as
expressed in his famous prayer?
support. Darley and Latané found that when alone, eighty-five percent of subjects went to the aid
of a ‘gasping and choking’ confederate. When five other subjects were present, the proportion of
volunteers fell dramatically; just thirty-one percent of subjects were prepared to help (1968). Other
studies have confirmed this phenomenon (Latané et al 1981, Latané and Rodin 1969).

Dovidio points out that diffusion of responsibility has more to say about what stops people helping
than it does about why people do help. His arousal; cost-reward model maps out two further
mechanisms by which choices about whether to help are made (1995). Firstly, any prospective
helper must experience a sufficient level of emotional arousal. Ignoring the possibility of positive
emotions such as compassion and sympathy, he views this state of arousal as purely
uncomfortable- comprising only of guilt and anxiety. People who see another’s distress are
typically lumbered with a whole range of unpleasant feelings. They see helping as an easy way of
rid themselves of that emotional burden (Darlington and Macker, 1966, Freedman et al, 1967).
Even this, claim Dovidio et al, is not always enough to produce bystander intervention. Before
helping, people must undergo a form of economic analysis whereby various ‘pros and cons’ of
helping are weighed up. Help will only arrive if the balance of cost and reward is stacked
sufficiently in favour of the helper. Hence, it is simply not possible for a person to act in a truly
selfless way- people always have their own best interests at heart. If this is true, acts that were
traditionally thought of as especially selfless must be re-examined in this light. One cannot
dismiss the concept of altruism altogether without first explaining ‘special’ acts of bravery and
giving.

In fact, documentation of such noble acts casts a further degree of suspicion over whether are ever
prepared to give without expecting any sort of compensation. Fellner and Marshall (1970)
examined the motives behind kidney donorship (as good a place to find altruism on exhibition as
any). Surprisingly, competition between family members for the opportunity to donate was
typical. In one family, the father tried to talk both his sons and wife out of donating a kidney
before proceeding to donate his own kidney! In addition to this sense of competition (which in
itself suggests that some kind of incentive was on offer) was the sense of achievement after the
operation. Rewards such as increased self-esteem, sense of purpose, and inner satisfaction were
certainly very real to those kidney donors interviewed. One donor described this phenomenon
succinctly; “I feel I am a better person, much happier than before... I have done something with

-4-
PS3170A Psychology of Religion Hemis Number: 106902
“Evaluate one paper with implications for the psychological understanding of religion, and assess
its implications”: Can psychological explanations of altruism adequately account for the life of Saint Francis, as
expressed in his famous prayer?
my life” (p.276). Maslow describes such events as ‘peak experiences’ (1962). This hardly sounds
altruistic; many donors were grateful for the opportunity.

However admirable a piece of behaviour may be, it seems that selfish motivations for it can
usually be found. This is a lesson taught not only by psychology, but also by science more
generally. The evolutionary framework in which psychology rests (Futuyama 1995) provides
further support for the theory of universal egoism.

Altruism has had a special significance to evolutionary psychologists because it originally

appeared to contravene the laws governing evolution. As early as 1798 Malthus suggested that life
was essentially about selfishness, resulting in competition for scarce resources. Evolutionists have
taught us to be cynical of possible acts of giving (Campbell, 1972). The rabbit that had once
performed a great act of love was now doing nothing more than protecting the genes of his family
(Dawkins, 1976). Pringle-Pattison suspected that “in the attraction of mate for mate and in the care
of offspring, as well as in the further facts of association and co-operation in flocks and herds, we
can see prefigured the altruistic virtues which form the staple diet of our human morality” (1917,
p.84). Evolution had showed that there was no need for the extravagance of altruism. Genetic
explanations were enough.

The life of Saint Francis challenges explanations provided about altruism by psychology
specifically, and science generally. His actions deviate from those expected by this framework in a
number of important ways. The social models outlined predict three things about altruism- Saint
Francis conforms to none. Firstly, altruistic acts should correlate to the number of people present
in any given situation. Pro-social behaviour should be found less frequently than selfish conduct-
the exception rather than the rule. If this is sound, then acts of altruism should be quite rare (and
indeed are in most of us) because it can only manifest itself in certain- uncommon- situations. If
too many people are present then no one is likely to help. A person who might well have
volunteered to help while alone might not bother if there were several other people available for
the job. Saint Francis on the other hand, helped always. He helped regardless of how many others
there were present; his selflessness was permeating, and was impervious to diffusion.

Secondly, these accepted models of altruism predict that situational factors are more important
than are behavioural ones. Yet it seems sensible to regard those who are particularly altruistic, to

-5-
PS3170A Psychology of Religion Hemis Number: 106902
“Evaluate one paper with implications for the psychological understanding of religion, and assess
its implications”: Can psychological explanations of altruism adequately account for the life of Saint Francis, as
expressed in his famous prayer?
share other similarities. Rabinowitz et al claim that study along these lines has been disappointing;
‘no personality correlates personality correlates appear “in any coherent way” (p. 65, 1974). This
is a shame, for it is more than likely that they exist. If behavioural factors were irrelevant, then all
people would be altruistic to an equal degree. All people would be equally likely to help someone
provided situational factors remained constant. Presumably then, had Dovidio (or anyone else)
lived in similar circumstances to Saint Francis, he would have displayed a life of equal
compassion!

Although research in this area is limited, there have been some noteworthy findings. Turner for
example found that those who were altruistic were likely to posses good social and community
skills (1948). Adolescents were used in this study, but such behaviour correlates are born out by
Saint Francis too. By all accounts, he possessed excellent social skills and community relations
(see Burkitt, 1926 for a review of the sources available about Saint Francis). This area probably
deserves more attention than it is being given at present.

The third prediction made is that pro-social behaviour should depend on the relative costs and
benefits of any situation. It is true that pro-social behaviour is to be found most frequently when
the costs of helping are low, and the gains impressive. However, Saint Francis always went out of
his way to help, oblivious of the consequences of doing so. Furthermore, it is difficult to identify
any rewards (or lack of cost) particular to times when he helped. (Chesterton provides examples of
these (1923). Most likely, so long as he knew there was someone in need of help, he acted
irrespective of any other situational factors. He would often go to extraordinary lengths to help
just one individual His giving has been described as less economical than eccentric. Chesterton
says that “he threw money about in extravagance and benevolence” (p.42). His desire to ‘give
without receiving’ does not come and go, here one day and gone another. He is constantly, reliably
selfless. It is evident from his prayer, that he placed a higher value on the welfare of others than on
his own well-being. Consequently, cost-reward analysis must be thought of as a heuristical
concept. It provides a useful rule of thumb about the actions of most people, but its power is not
sufficient to explain the actions all everybody. If a person appears to have acted in a way that is
directly contravened by that model, then one must look elsewhere for explanations.

The Christian perspective on altruism is clear. People should actively strive to ignore selfish
desires by turning away from the self (Romans 6:12, Galations 5:13). Rather than being the

-6-
PS3170A Psychology of Religion Hemis Number: 106902
“Evaluate one paper with implications for the psychological understanding of religion, and assess
its implications”: Can psychological explanations of altruism adequately account for the life of Saint Francis, as
expressed in his famous prayer?
fundamental drive of human nature, selfishness, is an undesirable result of ‘worldly’ surroundings
(James 1:27). Far from being the cold reality that is not only accepted, Christians maintain that
such egoism can (and should) be extinguished from everyday behaviour in favour of a more
natural state of selflessness. Accordingly, altruism is no spur of the moment phenomenon. It is a
far more permeating affair. This means that one who is altruistic in one situation is more likely to
be altruistic in another- an idea supported by Gergen et al 1972.

The study of altruism raises acute questions about the very nature of humans; what drives them,
and what on what basis they make decisions. Darley and Latané concede that altruism
“embarrasses traditional theories of psychology that are founded on the assumption that man is
moved only by considerations of reinforcement” (1970 p.83). Some take this to be sign of the
failure of science and psychology to answer basic human questions (Abou-Rahme, 1998).
However, the belief that one must choose either religion or science (including psychology) is too
extreme. A fuller understanding of altruism will hardly occur if psychology ceases to address these
difficult questions. A more reasonable interpretation is that they offer complimentary (Brow 1994,
Wilkinson, 1997) explanations of altruism. A reassuring correlation between religious values and
altruism has been reported (Macdonald, cited in Gergen et al 1972, p.108). However, from this
study alone it was difficult to determine whether religion caused people to act altruistically, or
whether altruistic people were more likely to become religious (such is the trouble with
correlational work). This issue needs to be addressed. Psychological understanding of the basic
motives that drive people will be furthered when the exact relationship between altruism and
religious belief is revealed.

Unfortunately, the type of altruism shown by Saint Francis is exceptionally rare- egoism is
successful in explaining the vast majority of behaviour. Saint Francis was not at all driven by
selfishness, but most of us are! It is important to acknowledge that Saint Francis was driven by
exceptional motives stemming from his complete faith in God. Although the life of Saint Francis
has been examined in only an anecdotal way, it seems distinctly possible that his religious beliefs
caused him to act in a more altruistic way. His prayer shows that he acts in this way for a reason-
for God.

References

-7-
PS3170A Psychology of Religion Hemis Number: 106902
“Evaluate one paper with implications for the psychological understanding of religion, and assess
its implications”: Can psychological explanations of altruism adequately account for the life of Saint Francis, as
expressed in his famous prayer?
Abou-Rahme F. (1998) And God said. Glasgow: Bell & Bain.

Beaver R. P., Bergman J., Langley M. S. (1994) The world’s religions. Oxford: Lion Publishing

Brow R. (1994) Origins of religion. In R. P. Beaver, J. Bergman, M. S. Langley (Eds.) The world’s religions Oxford:
Lion Publishing.

Campbell, D. T. (1972) On the genetics of altruism and the counter-hedonic components of human culture. Journal of
Social Issues, 28, 21-38

Chesterton, G.K. (1923) St. Francis of Assisi. London: Hodder and Stoughton.

Darlington R.B., Macker C. E. (1966) Displacement of guilt-produced altruistic behaviour. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology. 61, 402-410

Darley J. M. Latané B. (1968)Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 377-383

Darley J. M. Latané B. (1970) Norms and normative behaviour: field studies of social interdependence.

Darley J. M. (1991)Altruism and pro-social behaviour research: Reflections and prospects. In M. S. Clark (Eds.) Pro-
social behaviour, rewiev of personality and social psychology. California: Sage

Darwin C. R. (1859) The origin of species by means of natural selection. London: John Murray

Dawkins, R. (1976) The selfish gene Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dovidio J. F., Pilivan J.A., Gaertner S. L., Schroeder D. A., Clark R. D. (1991) The arousal: Cost-reward model and
the process of intervention. In M. S. Clark (Eds.) Pro-social behaviour: review of personality and social psychology,
12. California: Sage

Dovidio, J.F. (1995) With a little help from my friends. In G. C. Brannigan & M.R. Merrens (Eds.) The social
psychologists: research adventures. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Fellner C. H., Marshall J. R. (1970) Kidney donors. In J. R. Macaulay and L. Berkowitz (Eds.) Altruism and helping
behaviour. London: Academic Press.

Freedman, J. L. Wallington S. A. Bless E. (1967) Compliance without pressure: the effect of guilt. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 7, 117-124

Futuyama D. J. (1995) Science on trial: the case for evolution. Massachusetts: Sunderland.

Gergen K. J. Gergen M. M., Meter K. (1972) Individuals orientations to pro-social behaviour. Journal of Social
Issues. 28, 105-130

Greene J. C. (1959) The death of Adam: Evolution and its impact on Western thought. Ames: Iowa University Press.

Latané B., Darley, J. M. (1968) Group inhibitions of bystander intervention in emergencies. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 10, 215-212

Latané B., Darley J.M. (1970) The unresponsive bystander: Why does he not help? New York Harper

Latané B., Darley J.M. (1970) Social determinants of bystander intervention in emergencies. In J. R. Macaulay and L.
Berkowitz (Eds.) Altruism and helping behaviour. London: Academic Press.

Latané B., Nida S., Williams D. W. (1981) The effects of group size on helping behaviour. In J. P. Rushton, R. M.
Sorrentino (Eds.) Altruism and helping behaviour. Hillsdale, Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.

-8-
PS3170A Psychology of Religion Hemis Number: 106902
“Evaluate one paper with implications for the psychological understanding of religion, and assess
its implications”: Can psychological explanations of altruism adequately account for the life of Saint Francis, as
expressed in his famous prayer?
Latané B., Rodin J. (1969) A lady in distress: Inhibiting effects of friends and strangers on bystander intervention.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 189-202

Lewis C. S., (1952) Mere Christianity London: Fontana

Piliavin I.M., Rodin J., Pili0avin J. A. (1969) Good samaritanism: An underground phenomenon? Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 13, 289-299

Pringle-Pattison A. S. (1917) The idea of God in light of recent philosophy. (The Gifford lectures delivered in the
University of Aberdeen in the years 1912 and 1913. Oxford: Clarendon.

Macauley J. M. (1970) A shill for charity. In J. R. Macaulay and L. Berkowitz (Eds.) Altruism and helping behaviour.
London: Academic Press.

Macaulay J.M., Berkowitz, L. (1970), Altruism, and helping behaviour: social psychological studies of some
antecedents and consequences. New York: Academic Press.

Malthus T.R. (1798/1993) An essay on the principal of population. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Maslow A. H. (1962) Lessons from peak experiences. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 2, 9-18.

Rabinowitz V. C., Karuza J., Zevon M. A. (1984) In R. Folger (Eds.) The sense of injustice: Social psychological
perspectives. New York: Plenum.

In W. Seton (Eds.) St. Francis of Assisi: 1226-1926: Essays in commemoration. London: University of London Press

Turner W. D. (1943) Altruism and its measurement in children. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 43, 502-
516

Wilkinson D. (1997) God, the Big bang, and Stephen Hawking. Crowborough: Monarch.

Wilson E.O. (1976) Sociobiology- a new basis for human nature. New Scientist, May 13.

Wilson, E.O. (1978) On human nature. London: Penguin.

-9-